|
|
Post by the answer on Oct 17, 2005 15:48:40 GMT -5
I know
Destroy=annihilate
Perish=Annihilate
Die/death=annihilate
I know we have discussed this in the past, but i don't remember your points at all( it was like 2 years ago). Some take this to be a true story. Some disagree. But that isn't the point. Jesus is not telling a fictional story that has NO basis in truth. However u want to interpret the passage, u can't make me believe that there is no reason to believe that the elements in the story represent some true things about the hear after.
People who are existing gnash their teeth. Which is my point. They will most def have a change in mind when they realize they should have turned to the Christ..chea!
It is the smoke of their torment. Not just some random smoke. Torment of people ! MAybe it's just imagry. I don't think smoke is gonna be rising from hell. A Lot of the language that describes hell isn't to be taken literal. Are u saying there is just some smoke that's gonna be rising forever?
We just disagree on the definition of destruction. When it comes to the soul, I take it to mean ruin and not annihilate.
You think that in 1 thess it means ann. I don't buy it. Because it wouldn't make any sense to say they are annihilated from the presence of the Lord eternally. If a thing is annihilated, it doesn't exist at all.
John 5:24 says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. "
So u take Jesus to be saying that when we come to him we pass from non existance to existance? He says we pass from death to life. According to u, when something dies or is dead, it does not exist. So before we come to Jesus, do we exist?
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Oct 17, 2005 16:31:33 GMT -5
You mean they don't? I would like to see you actually do some work in this field, and tell me what basis you have to say your deffinitions of
Destruction/Destroy = live forever
Perish = live forever
Die/Death = live forever
is more precise than the ones I suppose.
Yeah, and unfortunately I doubt that even if I presented the most clear case possible, you would even then relent a portion of your position. So I'd rather not rewrite another, just to see you have a 6 word dismissal.
You missed the point, or at least refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the phrase, and how it is being used.
OK answer. We are just going in circles. You know very well the argument, but act like its so silly to concieve by framing things in a very awkward manner. You mix up the words and order and focus to best present your cause. I don't find that to be very integrous.
There you go again, doing the very thing you did above. You know very well that DEATH IS OUR ULTIMATE END, and we walk partialy in it now, but fully at its consemation. So while it might be cute and accomplish a few chuckles from the crowd, your characterization/question does nothing of any meaningful substance.
And, I think I'll throw my hat into the sarcastic ring for just a moment...
Wow! The answer yet again managed to skip over every major point I have offered!
...huh. That was an intresting excurssion.
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Oct 17, 2005 16:35:17 GMT -5
lol  |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Oct 17, 2005 16:50:01 GMT -5
lol Not bad, only 2 letters short of your normal responses! |
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Oct 17, 2005 17:06:09 GMT -5
HA
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Oct 17, 2005 17:35:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Oct 17, 2005 18:30:34 GMT -5
ok
I don't know what else to say. I make a point, then u say I'm being sarcastic or I'm trying to get a laugh. Then u say 'I have explained this many times" I could say the same thing, this gets us nowhere.
It was a simple question about passing from death to life. You took it as sarcasm. ahhh well. can't help what u think.
THen u say I skipped over your points.
#1 i hardly ever respond to every point
#2 many of my answers would be the same. That's why i don't reference every point.
I don't sit at a puter all day, I don't have time to write out long drawn out responses like neb (lol...love ya dog...but u can talk) I do what i can. Now I may not always respond to every thing u say, sorry if that offends u...but there is nothing i can do about that.
I'm mixing up words? again, i dunno if u think I do it on purpose, or if u think I'm dumb. I'm not the smartest kat. I'm learning. i'm willing to be taught, or shown where I'm mistaken. you have some good points. But someties your responses are just as frustrasting as u say mine are.
You also say i skipped over your major points. I dunno if u mean I didn't respond at all, or I dodged them. Either way I did respond to SOME of what u said, gimme dat.
Anyway, i thought at last some of my repsonses were valid. guess not. ( to u at least)
I see the convo going in circles. If u wanna continue...coo with me. If not, we can archive it, till it comes around the next time.
out
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Oct 17, 2005 19:48:18 GMT -5
Answer, I can not sympathize with your frustration. Because from my perspective when I talk with you it generaly goes like this...
[eternal]TONS OF RESEARCH, LOTS OF STUDY, EXTENSIVE EXEGESIS[/eternal]
[answer]yeah, but I'm not convinced. How can non existence be punished?[/answer]
[eternal]THOROUGH REPLY, DEEP CANNONICAL EXEGESIS, MANY SCRIPTURES SHOWING DEEP LAYERED CONTINUITY[/eternal]
[answer]define life[/answer]
It's kind of aggravating to be honest.
I don't need you to respond to EVERY point. That is skewing my complaint. What I request of you though is to interact with my major points on their merits that they provide. This is what I seek to do with you and others. I may not quote and answer every sentence, but I will get to the POINTS and THRUSTS of argument. You rarely if ever do this. And when I respond to your questions, you skip through the merits of those replies to ask another funny question. I have begun to not take you seriously.
Remember, I don't start these threads, you do. You started this one, you started many on HHZ, and in the middle of this one you started another at HCR. Why you keep doing this, I don't know. But it doesn't appear to be because you are genuinely intrested in the doctrine, and are seeking a honest pursuit of its meaning and merits for being.
peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Oct 17, 2005 20:00:45 GMT -5
Really?
I think we are looking at 2 different threads.
What "major thrusts" am i not dealing with?
I have missed it! When I go thru a post I try to deal with the major points. I dunno man.
It's one thing to say, i'm not adequtley dealing with your points. it's another to say I'm giving 3 word answers to every thing.
So please, point out what I have negected.
As for the posts, you choose to enter into it. it was for the board. i didn't call u out. When I started the thread it came out of some conversations I was having, not this inner desire to prove u wrong.
This is what the board is here for
out
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Oct 17, 2005 20:20:57 GMT -5
I didn't speculate that you start these threads to "prove me wrong." If I thought that was your intent, then I would expect you to offer SOMETHING substantial to accomplish that task. You have not. Therefore I have never concluded that you start all these threads to "prove me wrong." I said I don't know why you do it, but from the way they ussualy take place, I can safely assume it is not because you are generaly intrested in the doctrine. Sometimes I ask questions about things I am intrested in, but I then thoroughly interact with the responses, because that is how interest operates. With you, well, you are certainly a curve ball. Here is something I wish you would deal with...
I wrote,
And your response was,
And then brought up weeping and gnashing of teeth. So then I began to interact with that phrase, and all of a sudden you were allowed to get away with saying, "but we still die" in response to a large cross section of scripture outlining that the culmination of our lives on earth is either the ceasing of that life, or the perpetual continuation of it. That response neither offers an alternative interpretation of those passages that is coherent and consistent in the face of all the other passages I have provided outside of the above list, nor does it even adequately address the scriptures inside that box! It is a tag line, a bumpersticker that genericly says something, though not necessarily anything pertnient to the context of the immediate conversation.
It's like folks just saying, "SUPPORT THE TROOPS" when there is a war debate. The tag line really doesn't add much to the conversation.
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Oct 18, 2005 18:12:47 GMT -5
The issue here is in how we are defining the words. Lets see what the lexicons and the bible has to say. DestroyIn your view, this means to annihilate. However, this is never the case in the scriptures or in the lexicons. Matt 10:28 -- the word for destroy (appolumi) according to Vine: " not extinction, but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well being."According to Thayer: to devote or give over to eternal miserylook at scriptures that use the word appolumi "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matt 26:52 We should not test the Lord, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes 1 cor 10:9 17"When he came to his senses, he said, 'How many of my father's hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." Matt 9:17 7Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." Jn 6:27 Do people pass into non-existence when they are killed by a sword ..or a snake? Do people become non-existent when they are hungry. Do wineskins pass into non-existence when they are destroyed by bursting? Is food annihilated when it spoils? In every instance where the word apollumi us found in the New Testament, something other than annihilation is being described. there isn't a single instance in the New Testament where appollumi means annihilation in the strict meaning of the word. If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple. In 70 Ad ( sup neb!!) the temple was destroyed ( different word here 'phthiro' literally to "waste away”) When the temple was destroyed in 70 AD the building was torn down, but the material was still there, the building was wasted, changed, not annihilated. The same can be said of the wicked soul, wasted but not annihilated. Lets look at the OT. There are a lot of words in Hebrew translated “destroy or destruction” none of which are given the meaning annihilate. The word 'ahvad' is the word usually translated "destroy." In num 21:29 the people of Chemosh were 'undone' ('destroyed' in NIV). In the context the meaning of 'ahvad' is that the people were conquered and sold into slavery. They were not annihilated, but enslaved. In 1 Sam 9:3, 20, Saul's donkeys were 'ahvad', i.e., lost. these donkeys were not annihilated. In Hos 4:6, God people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. In the context, this cannot mean they were nonexistent In Jer 23:1, 2 we have the usage of the words 'destroy" and 'scatter." In this text, it is obvious that these words cannot mean annihilation. " Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of My pasture.!" declares the Lord. Therefore thus says the Lord God of Israel concerning the shepherds who are tending My people: "You have scattered My flock and driven them away, and not attended to them; behold, I am about to attend to you for the evil of your deeds.' declares the Lord."Jer 48:42 where Moab is said to be destroyed in the sense of the people being enslaved, not annihilated. 2 Moab will be destroyed as a nation because she defied the LORD. In Ps 78:45 where the psalmist says that the flies devoured or consumed the Egyptian. The psalmist sure meant that the flies tormented them, not annihilated them. (they were still there after the flies left) Jeremiah used another word ‘bah lah,’ in Lam 3:4, saying that his flesh and skin were "made old," or consumed, he was consumed with grief, not annihilated. 'Kah lah' is used in Ezekel 13:13 where hailstones 'consumed' a wall, i.e. knocked it down, not annihilated it. Words like destroy, perish, consume, in the bible do not mean annihilation. No lexicons or bible passages where the words are used prove that. In your interpretation of these passages u make the point that Jesus is making a contrast between ETERNAL LIFE and DEATH/PERISHING. I’d agree. The problem I think is the meaning u pour into the words. For example john 8:21 Once more Jesus said to them, "I am going away, and you will look for me, and you will die in your sin. Where I go, you cannot come." 24I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."The "death" spoken of here does not mean cessation of existence any more than eternal life means the beginning of existence. If u wanna say ‘death’ is the end of existence, then ‘life’ must be the beginning. But that would not make sense to say ‘we begin to exist when we receive Jesus’ Eternal life deals not so much with quantity as with quality of existence. I have heard that heaven will be bangin!! I can’t wait to get there. Paul could not even describe what he saw. In heaven we will do more then just ‘sit there and exist’ we will forever ENJOY God and each other. Jesus even said THIS is eternal life..to believe in the Son. It’s in knowing and enjoying the goodness and company of God. This is what makes eternal life worth looking forward to. Just so with eternal death. It is a quality of existence, not cessation of being. Even in this life death can co-exist with life: "But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Tim. 5:6); Eph. 2:1. 1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. 4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.There are two things which the believer gets: at his regeneration, eternal life; at his resurrection, immortality; but in both instances he already has life and existence. So it is in the case of the wicked: the second death does not mean cessation of existence, for he is dead already, now in this life (1 Tim. 5:6; Eph. 2:1; John 5:24, 25) Again in John 5, we are already ‘dead’ You are not suggesting we didn’t exist before? We pass FROM death into life. I also think that ‘destroy’ can be compatible with eternal torment. In heb 2:14 14Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil!Concerning the beast : 1 1The beast who once was, and now is not, is an eighth king. He belongs to the seven and is going to his destruction.Both passages say that the beast and the devil are ‘destroyed’ But in revelation 20 it says And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.I thought they were ‘destroyed’? I think ‘destroy’ again shows more of the idea of ruin, and loss, rather then ‘annihilation’
8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."Here John tells us what the second death is. Being thrown into the firey lake. Choz |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Oct 19, 2005 0:12:30 GMT -5
No, what I suggest it means is determined by not the word lexicons and interpreters choose to use, but the consistent meaning and thread of thought found in those uses of that word. Now this can be manipulated, and to a certain degree I think your attempt to present a variant meaning does this, but I hope to show why it would be unwise to follow that path.
Now you did a brief word study of appolumi. I applaud the time you took to do this, and is what I would hope to find in such a conversation. So I thank you for entertaining the dialogue at a higher level. What I will do is show through your own passages how this word presents the same thought as I have presented it as meaning, and I am sure you will agree with its meaning in those passages, but if you will be willing to carry that over to a human being we will have to see…
None of the death passages require any explanation from me, as I am sure you agree.
Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved." Matt 9:17
Now, yes this indicates it has gone on to waste. More pointedly to the reason Jesus chose to use this word, they are no longer “wineskins.” If they do not meet their purpose, they are disregarded and thrown into the fire, correct? The nuance is clear, and remains consistent with the concept of destruction, albeit applied in a difference concept.
7Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." Jn 6:27
The things of this earth shall pass away, but only eternal things last forever. Again this shares in the same concept as the overall nuance of the word. The same goes for the temple example you gave.
See, that is the problem. You keep wanting to insert “non-existence” into every passage where the word is used. That is unproductive, and unfair to the word. When Jesus says, “shall not perish” He expresses a certain thought that we are all familiar with. Death. The end of life. No need to say “non-existence.” Perish is what it is, death, the end of life. And when it is consistently contrasted with life…that is an amazingly strong contrast that we must take seriously.
Annihilationism is a term applied to a concept, just like Trinity. It means God has given us life, and our existence is dependent upon that grace. The scriptures teach that God will not strive with man forever because of our sin. Building upon that, the scriptures teach that death is the ultimate end of all human beings, for all have sinned. However, those who share in Christ, have passed out of that judgment, and will live even if they die. Those who do not? They just die.
The NAS actually translates that word as “annihilate” a few times, along with the other typical words we are accustomed to (ruin(ed), obliterate, destroy(ed), die, perish, etc). Instances such as this one, may I ask why do you think this word which has such an overt connotation to it as demonstrated in the parenthesis, was used in this occasion? What nuance was the author trying to convey? I would ask you to do this in every occasion, even above with the temple and wineskins, because it seems so clear. As a people they were through. Their strength was over, their collective power, etc. They were no longer to be a people. Their peoplehood was gone, annihilated so to speak.
I ask you to apply this pattern of thinking to each of your remaining passages. I have never asked anyone to replace these words with annihilate. That is silly. “I will kill you!” has different meanings depending on the context, but all share the same, if even faint, connection in meaning, even though it expresses different connotations in different settings. It could mean I am laughing at something someone said about me. It could mean I am playing playing basketball with a friend, and I am saying I will win by a large margin. It could mean I want to assassinate the person in front of me. So many wide range of uses, but at the same time there is a reason the person chooses to say “kill.” It has its same definition, even though contexts utilize different nuances of that definition for the purposes of the occasion.
I will directly respond to this one…
In Ps 78:45 where the psalmist says that the flies devoured or consumed the Egyptian. The psalmist sure meant that the flies tormented them, not annihilated them. (they were still there after the flies left)
Well, the flies “devoured” which is “akal” which is about eating, not dying or destroying or perishing, at least as far as I have seen. What prompted you to say this? The frogs are said to have “destroyed” (shachath) which means corrupt/ravish. It shows a picture of deterioration. The major translation is “destroy” as in this passage, which I think shows that the Egyptians were ravished and state and order corrupted as in deterioration, and thus can be said to have been destroyed or overcame. They were done in, is what I think is trying to be expressed here.
Now apply your supposed interpretation to Jesus’ words that we should fear someone who can kill our body or a body part, but rather He who can destroy our soul in hell. The contrast is between loosing a body part or even life on earth with loosing life all together and being all together. Your reading would not be consistent with the passages I provided, the contrast Jesus offers do not work, and in fact makes no sense.
Lamentations 3:4 expresses Jeremiah’s body “wasting away” again a nuance and image dependent upon the ultimate meaning of destruction. Without that meaning, his usage of it would be out of place, just as are all the other passages you have provided.
Ezekiel 13:13 is like the wineskins. It is no longer a wall, thus it is properly labeled as “consuming,” dependent on the image of destruction!
Actually, I have already proven that to be wrong in this post. But the doctrine is not dependent upon a WORD, but rather its meaning. We think of annihilate in modern images, seeing a ray gun zap somebody and now they are no longer there! But that is modern imagery. Instead we rely on what “perish” “die” and “destroy” mean. When I say my Grandmother “died” it is clear what I meant. I don’t mean that she is suffering consciously for eternity. Destruction is the end of something, whether it be a wall, wineskin, or a soul. The wall is no longer a wall, the temple is no longer a temple, the wineskin is no longer a wineskin, and the soul is no longer a soul. To put in “annihilate” in those places forces an image that is not what is being talked about. Rather it is the end of something. In the case of the wicked, it is their lives that meets its end.
The passages in the box show this, as does those I presented talking about the spirit returning to God, not suffering for eternity in fire! Or that the thoughts of the wicked perish in their death, not last for eternity in conscious torment! Or as Isaiah 26:14 says The dead will not live, the departed spirits will not rise; Therefore You have punished and destroyed them, And You have wiped out all remembrance of them. The dead will not rise, God has punished and destroyed them, and all remembrance of them is gone. They are gone, over, finished, destroyed, they shall not rise in their death to anything. They are over.
Obadiah 15 says, "For the day of the LORD draws near on all the nations. As you have done, it will be done to you. Your dealings will return on your own head. 16 "Because just as you drank on My holy mountain, All the nations will drink continually. They will drink and swallow And become as if they had never existed. 17 "But on Mount Zion there will be those who escape, And it will be holy. And the house of Jacob will possess their possessions.
This is the fate of the wicked.
And as I am sure you are aware, I am fully convinced that it is your interpretation that requires fancy redefining. Death=eternal life, Perish=eternal life, Destroy=eternal life…YIKES!
I am unclear on what you are saying here. But when Jesus says, “you WILL die in your sins,” He is reffering to the culmination of death’s operation in their mortal bodies. They will die. However, in Christ, that fate will not meet us who share in His life. We will pass out of death, and into life. Pretty clear.
I agree that eternal life has a great quality, but that quality as far as I can see is not built into that word, but rather is construed from various other passages and teachings that offer a perspective to the quality of that life never ending. The others, its just “life ending.”
This is where I have a problem with Calvinists in general, and you are bringing that to bear in this conversation here. The “dead” language here is 2 things, one a metaphor, and secondly the pronouncements of our fate, that we are walking in what is secured for us. Just as Christ’s work was secured in Gen. 3, and the faithful walked in that security even before Jesus’ feet ever touched the earth.
I agree. My position does not neglect this. You claim however that even those outside of Christ posess immortality. That is not what Jesus teaches.
If the wicked is dead in the way you are saying, how many deaths are there? The bible talks about a “second death,” which believers will not be hurt by (Rev. 2:11) and which has no power over us (Rev. 20:6) and is described as being thrown into the fire and brimstone (Rev. 21:8)…which appears to be the end of it all. However, by your count, there are THREE deaths! We have already died, though we live on earth, then we will die when we are buried in the casket, and then we will die again in the fire/brimstone! That is three deaths! This is partly why I think your interpretation process on this is off, and instead should be read more along the lines of what I offered.
And you take this to mean “He might make suffer him who holds…”? I think the term again is a nuance dependent upon the literal word. That is that his power and effort and purpose is destroyed. He is over, demoralized and broken. All his efforts are shown to be vain, and his purpose is ultimately destroyed. Seems about right to me.
About the beast in Rev. 17:11. This is a good point, and is one I need to research. It makes sense in the same vein as I have been presenting throughout this post, but I want to shore this one up more.
What is important to keep in mind though, is that the bible makes intentional effort to talk about the endless torment of the beast and company, Of no others is this said. The wicked are thrown into the fire, but it does not have the same effect on them as it does the others mentioned. Instead they are destroyed, and perish, have their thoughts end in that very day, and experience the “second death.” It is here that Jesus’ teaching on Ghenna are so important and we see why this image was chosen and how it fits so tightly with John’s vision of the fire. Ghenna destroyed all that went into it, and whose “worm does not die.” Ultimate destruction, the second death. The grand finale.
It all fits so neatly and concisely. Jesus’ words are the ultimate kicker for me, and are what led me down this path. I have never read any theology book on this topic. I have only read one article on it period, on the Rich man and Lazarous! I only this week ordered my first book on the topic. I have studied under no person with this doctrine. This surely is completely a bible experience and exegesis for me. I look forward though to diving more deeply into it.
I appreciated your post.
peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by the answer on Oct 19, 2005 19:07:32 GMT -5
I think the concept here is that it is ruined. No longer useful. I would agree. The passage does not say anything about being thrown into the fire. Perhaps they are used for something else like a toy- something for kids to play with. Or perhaps they go into a box of old stuff. I’m just saying it’s not necessary to say they are thrown into the fire. If we carry this over to humans, I think u would argue that they are no longer useful, are thrown into the fire, and are consumed, right? We’ll get to that
I would never insert ‘non existance’ into these passages. But for those who hold your view, I do it to show that the word ‘destroy’ does not carry the meaning ‘to cause to cease to exist’ This is what annihilate means. The question is, what does it mean to die? When we use that term we know it means ‘end of life’ But we also know that the person is still somewhere. The person is the soul or the sprit. At death the spirit and the body separate. THIS is physical death.
Remember that I am working from the premise that u believe that God will totally end the existence of those who don’t come to Jesus. You then point to scriptures that use that word ( destroy) to prove your point. In bringing up Numbers and these others, my simple point is that they still existed. They were ‘destroyed’ but u could still have dinner with them. You believe that sinners who die with out Jesus will ‘die’ or pass out of existence. At least this is what I think u are saying correct me if I’m not getting it right. So, we couldn’t talk to anyone in hell after this is all done, cuz they won’t exist. Even though the bible uses these terms, I think we should understand them as u have said. The wineskins are not useful anymore, the nation is done, the food is thrown out etc. But then when we get to humans, why do u add into that a ceasing of existence? Rather then just saying, they are ruined, never to be what they were created to do..glorify God.?
I agree with u. This to me is the plain meaning. You feel it’s odd to insert ‘non existance’ into this…I agree. So what happens when a soul is destroyed?
In the passage Matt 10:28 Jesus says 28Do not be afraid of those who kill (apokteino) the body but cannot kill (apokteino) the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy (apollumi) both soul and body in hell.
Jesus uses 2 different words. Man can ‘kill’ the body. But they can’t ‘kill’ the soul. God however can ‘destroy’ both body and soul in hell. A man can cause me to cease to exist on earth. He ‘kills’ me. I no longer exist ( on earth) But then Jesus changes the word. It’s no longer ‘kill’, but it is now ‘destroy’ And in every passage where that word is used (apollumi) it simply means ruined, loss. So God does not ‘end our existence’ rather he ‘destroys’ our body and soul in hell, which the biblical writers never use to say that something no longer exists.
I tired to show that destruction does not always mean the end of something(existence). Again, we must look at how the bible uses the word destruction (apollumi) , and not how we look at it modern days.
Luke 15:8-9 "Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins and loses (apollumi) one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin which I had lost (apollumi)!
The coin that was lost it didn’t not cease to exist
Mark 2:22 "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost (apollumi), and the skins as well; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins."
The wine still existed.
Matthew 15:24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost (apollumi) sheep of the house of Israel."
The sheep still existed.
Luke 15:24,32 for this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost (apollumi), and has been found.’ And they began to be merry." … "But we had to be merry and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost (apollumi) and has been found."
The son always existed.
So when the wicked are ‘destroyed’ ( at the end) I have no reason to believe that they ‘end’ in the sense of no longer existing. Rather, that they have come to ruin. And this will be their state for eternity
This is talking about a nation, not individual souls. Isaiah remembers them. I remember them. Isaiah doesn’t not mean there is no ‘true remembrance of them’
Again, this is about a nation. This doesn’t speak on the individual soul
Where have I made this claim? Death is NOT eternal life. Perish is NOT eternal life. Destroy is NOT eternal life. I have never said that. You think eternal life, means eternal existence. Nope. We exist BEFORE givin eternal life, right? Like I said, eternal life has to do with the quality of living, and our company ( God) One of the joys of heaven is forver being with God. The horrors of hell? Being without God, enduring the WRATH of God. This is NOT eternal life. But the ‘destruction’ Jesus warns us about. (BTW, on the cross was Jesus enduring the wrath for those whom he would annihilate?..lol don’t answer that)
Does Paul teach it?
1 Cor 15:53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"
You may say ‘this is only believers’
Paul says 15and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. Acts 24:15
Also vs 22 proves this applies to ALL MEN! "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive."
No. You would be right, if we were alive before we came here. But we are born dead. We didn’t die. Still 2 deaths. Physical and spiritual. Dead is our condition. We weren’t alive before!
I take it to mean his power is destroyed, his purpose. Same as you. But he will forever be tormented. Can u be destroyed and be tormented forever? Yes. The wicked can go to destruction, and be tormented forever, there is no conflict between those words that I see.
I already know u don’t accept my interpretation of these verses. But I must bring them up again, because I feel that they do apply in the way I think they do.
Mt 25:46 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
Someone that has received the death penalty( the chair, lethal injection) are they still being punished? Are u saying Timothy McVeigh is still being punished for what he did?
The contrast here is life and punishment. Both terms necessitate existence. Both are eternal.
13They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
These are people,right. darkness reserved forever.
15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
What are they doing out there? i thought they were gone?
Wow…this purely your own study? Impressive. You defend it well.
Choz
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Oct 24, 2005 17:35:52 GMT -5
Being thrown into fire was brought in from another of Jesus’ discussion where he talks about the waste being thrown into the fire, especially John 15:6.
Well, I think I showed very well why these words were used in the contexts that they were, dependent on the picture and understanding of the word, and those images are utilized in particular contexts to get that point across. Just like the “I’ll kill you” example I used to illustrate this point, hope that was understood. Now your last statement is only true in your paradigm, that the person still exists somewhere, etc. I agree only to an extent, but the bible says the soul will “die” “destroy” “perish” just like the fleshly body. Yet for some reason you want to differentiate between the two in how they are to be applied depending on 1st and 2nd death. The physical death you agree with me, but then all of a sudden these words mean something different when looking at the “2nd death.” I say both deaths illustrate the same point.
The wineskins were no longer wineskins. I gave a very pointed analysis of this in my last post. To continue on with this line of questioning, you must interact with my already stated response. Otherwise we do not move forward. You must show why my already stated answer to this is incorrect, you can’t just keep repeating the same line without stated consideration of what I have already offered on the matter.
Explain to me how the soul “undergoes change” in hell, that your interpretation of destruction should be considered to be applicable? In my reading, I see that destruction implies just that, destruction. It is torn apart, broken, no longer what it once was. Remember I talked about the unfortunate image of science fiction movies in your reading of this theology. You expect the object to disappear. But that is not the case. Things can be destroyed and annihilated without it disappearing. But the point is that no longer are what they once were. So in the case of the soul, where the only context is its very being, this destruction/perishing/etc shows us what is intended. It is no longer a soul. In a non material world such as however we want to imagine life beyond the planet earth, the destruction of an inanimate object clearly implies its taking of its very being. It can not be torn apart. If it were, then it would no longer be alive anyways. If you want to imagine a soul fragmentedly floating around outer space, fine. I don’t think that is how it is, but at least it is more faithful to the image of destruction.
Actually the both are rooted in the same word. Check it out at studylight.org. The image of what happens in earth is utilized to present what occurs after life on earth has passed on a grander scale. Earth is shown to be temporary, eternity is just that, eternal. You should recheck your work on this one.
So then in your interpretation, Isaiah is wrong, since he is merely implying the nation…then why do we still remember them? It is because he is talking about something grander than this.
It doesn’t matter, they were collectively evil. Same as in Sodom and Gomorah, right?
Ok, touché. Perhaps I should have said “never ending life.” But you still have neglected to answer me on what basis do you suggest that “eternal” is not indicative of quantity, but quality.
Yes it is only believers. Now you have taught that the wicked who do not share in Christ put on “the imperishable,” and “immortality.” What makes that even more at odds is that Paul says “THEN IT WILL come about that “death is swallowed up in victory…o death where is your sting.” Your view neglects this. Death is swallowed up in victory because of this putting on of “immortality” and “imperishable(ness.).” What is to be noted is that we don’t have inherently “immortality.” That is why I teach conditional immortality. Secondly, deaths sting has no relevance of presence in the being of those who put on such conditions (imperishable, immortality).
This resurrection of the unjust is true, and as the passages I have already present is that they go to their death and destruction. How that works neither of us know in either of our positions. We just know the ultimate outcome, you for your position, and I for mine. I have always said there was a judgment, and I have talked about that extensively in this thread in respects to those passages.
Second death, not “second time dying.” First death is the one we are currently living in, the second death is leaving the earth, third death is being thrown into the fire. Thus we experience 3 deaths. Incorrect teaching.
It does not say repeated punishment occurring over and over again. It is one punishment that is forever in scope. It has no withdrawal.
Rev. is very visual, and not perhaps exhaustively literal in every description, I am sure we agree on this. So then the POINT of the message not the images are what we should be debating. Otherwise Jesus is literally a lamb in the hereafter…YIKES!
|
|
