12 reasons why hell is not eternal conscious torment

[StanJ]

It's possible, however, since the Tree of Life is spoken of in very beginning of Scripture I think it is the same thing in Revelation. Regarding Paul's statement, while he may not tell us how one is immortal in that passage, he does tell us that the Father alone has immortality. He said that after Jesus had risen from the dead. That suggests to me that Jesus too is receiving life from the Father. If that is the case it seems to me that we will be immortal by God giving us life continuously rather than in and of ourselves.

It IS possible but as I stated IMO, I don't believe so.
I have no problem with God being the source of our immortality as Paul stated or in your version either.

 

[Butch5]

Butch5,

You have invented what this means as 'the demise of the priesthood'. There is not a word in the semantics of Luke 16:19-31 that talks about his. Your response is an invention.

But Luke 16 does talk about 'the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes' (Lk 16:22-23). The rich man wanted Lazarus to warn his brothers about the torment he was experiencing after death (v 28).

The facts are that there are two different people here, one going to Abraham's side (was Abraham a believer or not?) and another going to Hades and being in torment (the Scriptures elsewhere confirm that such a place is for unbelievers).

To say that this refers to the priesthood is to engage in eisegesis.

Oz

Oz,

Look at the details. Why are we told that the rich man was dressed in purple and fine linen? Why are we told that the rich man has 5 brothers. These details wouldn't matter if this was about life after death. The priesthood wore purple and fine linen. The Priesthood were the Levites, Levi had five brothers. The rich man was in Hades in the flame, however, Hades is not the place of fiery torment, that is Gehenna. If the rich man is a ghost how does he have eyes and a tongue? How does Lazarus have a finger. If there is a great gulf between them how can they speak to each other?

If one reads the preceding chapters they can see what is building up the the parable. The parable is being spoken to the Pharisees not the disciples and Scripture says that Jesus didn't speak to the Pharisees except in parables. Notice the parable before this about the unfaithful steward, who were the stewards of God's word? it was the priesthood. Notice Jesus statement,

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. 17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. (Luke 16:16)

He tells the Pharisees that the Law and the Prophets were until John. In other words the priesthood is done, they were until John. Then He makes a statement that seems random.

18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (Luk 16:18 KJV)

However, this is the very thing that Jesus condemned them for earlier.

Some people think Lazarus represents Jesus some thing he represents the Gentiles, however, there is not question who the rich man represents, it's the priesthood. the rich man is a Jew as he called Abraham father. Prior to this parable Jesus had made this statement,

11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Mat 8:11-12 KJV)

Isn't this what we see in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man? The rich man who expected to be with Abraham isn't and instead is cast out and suffering while another is with Abraham.

However, as I said, in order to make the case that the parable is about life after death one first has to make the case that a man is somehow alive between death and the resurrection

Why wouldn't you think so. The words are in scripture so their obviously important. Ages of the ages is also used in Rev 4:9-10, as well as Rev 20:10.


That's because it's not literal, it's only figurative.


But you're missing the timeline, that scripture is talking about the first resurrection. It's important to focus on your timeline.


Actually, I would agree with Butch on that one.

Using parables to describe life after death would not be the best way to go. Hades is only used once in the Bible as hell fire, in Luke 16:19-31. The remainder of the Bible, Hades is the grave. I would submit that in that passage Jesus is alluding to something the Pharisees would have been familiar with. The Song of Moses was a description of how Israel would turn away from Him. In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man I believe Jesus is speaking of the priesthood and their demise. Here is the passage I believe Jesus is alluding too. Hell in this passage of Deu 32 is Sheol. Because Sheol/Hades is the grave and Gehenna is the place of fire. I think the Pharisees would see the connection between Jesus' words and the Song of Moses...

Deut 32:18-22 YLT The Rock that begat thee thou forgettest, And neglectest God who formeth thee. 19And Jehovah seeth and despiseth — For the provocation of His sons and His daughters. 20And He saith: I hide My face from them, I see what [is] their latter end; For a froward generation [are] they, Sons in whom is no stedfastness. 21They have made Me zealous by ‘no-god,’ They made Me angry by their vanities; And I make them zealous by ‘no-people,’ By a foolish nation I make them angry. 22For a fire hath been kindled in Mine anger, And it burneth unto Sheol — the lowest, And consumeth earth and its increase, And setteth on fire foundations of mountains.

The Priesthood - I'm thinking that he used Hades instead of Gehenna or the Lake of Fire, so we would make the distinction between the priesthood in this life vs. the afterlife. If Luke used Gehenna or the Lake of Fire, then we would be certain he was referring to the afterlife, but he didn't. So we know he was simply telling a story about the demise of the priesthood and has nothing to do with the afterlife. Luke could of wrote it like this, but he didn't......

Example 1: Verse 22-23 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In Gehenna, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

Example 2: Verse 22-23 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In the Lake of Fire, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

Let's take a look at Luke 16:19 NIV “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.

1. Purple is a color which is used in Scripture for the following: priestly garments (Ex 39:2, 24, 29); royal apparel (Judges 8:26; Esther 8:15); and is synonymous with wealth in Rev 18:16.

2. Fine linen was used extensively in the priestly garments such as the ephod, robe, mitre, and bonnet. (Ex 39). Linen is used as a symbol of wealth in Rev 18:16.

3. Only one class in Israel was habitually clothed in purple and linen and fared sumptuously every day4 - the High Priestly class of Sadducees.

- ATP

I didn't say I don't think so, I just don't see it. I agree that the words are important. I guess I'm not seeing the connection you're making

 

[ATP]

I didn't say I don't think so, I just don't see it. I agree that the words are important. I guess I'm not seeing the connection you're making.

Ages of the ages is also used in Rev 4:9-10, as well as Rev 20:10. Day and night are also describing the throne of heaven and torment in hell. Heaven and hell are both in the afterlife. Day and night, and age of the ages are both being used to describe afterlife. Rev 4:9-10 is definitely eternal language, so we can safely say that Rev 20:10 is also. I'm not convinced that hell is not eternal based on these facts.

 

[OzSpen]

Actually, I would agree with Butch on that one.

Using parables to describe life after death would not be the best way to go. Hades is only used once in the Bible as hell fire, in Luke 16:19-31. The remainder of the Bible, Hades is the grave. I would submit that in that passage Jesus is alluding to something the Pharisees would have been familiar with. The Song of Moses was a description of how Israel would turn away from Him. In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man I believe Jesus is speaking of the priesthood and their demise. Here is the passage I believe Jesus is alluding too. Hell in this passage of Deu 32 is Sheol. Because Sheol/Hades is the grave and Gehenna is the place of fire. I think the Pharisees would see the connection between Jesus' words and the Song of Moses...

- ATP

ATP,

It's not your or my place to decide what is the best way to teach about what happens at death. As it happens, under the OT regime (before the cross and resurrection), Jesus used the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to teach about what happens at death for both believer and unbeliever (Lk 16:19-31 ESV).

Your view that in the remainder of the Bible, Hades refers to the grave is the teaching of the JWs and not of orthodox Christianity. Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon defines Hades as 'the underworld as the place of the dead' (e.g. Eccl 9:10; Acts 2:27, 31; Matt 11:23; Luke 10:15) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:16). Hades combines two Greek words (I read NT Greek and have taught it), a (meaning 'not') and idein ('to see'), i.e. not to see - the meaning of invisible or unseen. This is why the eminent NT Greek scholar, A T Robertson cites McNeile in exegeting Matt 16:18, 'In the Old Testament the "gates of Hades" (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isa. 38:10; Wisd. 16:3; III Macc. 5:51) than death' (Robertson 1930:133). That has led some commentators to translate Hades as the place of disembodied spirits.

So, the KJV has not correctly translated Hades in every occurrence, which it also did with Sheol. This we know: (1) Hades cannot mean death because Koine Greek used thanatos for that. See Rev 1:18 where Hades and thanatos appear alongside each other so we know that they cannot be synonyms. (2) Hades is not the grave because mneema is the NT word for grave. (3) Hades does not mean hell (contrary to the KJV translations) because the final place of punishment according to the NT is Gehenna. (4) Hades can't refer to heaven because that is ouranos. (5) The place of eternal bliss after the resurrection at the end of the age cannot be Hades because that place is described as the new heavens and the new earth or the everlasting kingdom (see Matt 25:34; Rev 21:1) (with help from Robert Morey 1984:83).

What then is Hades? In the Greek version of the OT (the LXX), Hades was translated as the Greek equivalent of Sheol, so when the NT, thanks to progressive revelation, uses Hades, it deals with what happens to the soul of human beings at death, but the NT provides a fuller revelation. The OT Rabbinic understanding of Sheol became the meaning of Hades in Luke 16:19-31, so 'Abraham's bosom was interpreted as Rabbinic understanding that there was a section of Hades reserved for the righteous and the other section for the unrighteous. One of the problem with using Luke 16 to refer to a fuller NT understanding of what happens at death is that it is still dealing with the OT era. So a NT understanding of life after death needs to go beyond the Gospel materials which predominantly still deal with the Old Covenant. Luke 16 teaches us that prior to Christ's resurrection, believers AND unbelievers went to Sheol/Hades.

However, since the resurrection, the NT teaching is that believers at death enter the very presence of God (see 2 Cor 5:6-8; Phil 1:23; Heb 12:22-23). We know that Jesus went to Hades, the world beyond death (see Acts 2:31). In 1 Peter 3:18-22, Peter tells us that Christ proclaimed to 'the spirits now in prison' that his atonement was now complete. So the NT post-resurrection teaching is that at death, believers now go to heaven to await the future resurrection when they will enter the eternal state. What a day that will be! :wacko:

What, then, happens to unbelievers at death since Jesus' resurrection? Second Peter 2:9 (ESV) provides the specifics: 'then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgement', 'To keep' is a present tense infinitive, meaning that it is referring to continuous action. The unrighteous are continuously being kept 'under punishment'. This ESV translation covers up the fact that kolazomenous is a present tense participle and has the meaning of 'continuously being punished'. So right now, the unrighteous are experiencing punishing that does not cease.

There is no Hades as the grave here. That's the false teaching of the JWs. At death, believers go immediately into the presence of the Lord to enjoy God's presence while unbelievers who have died are right now experiencing punishment.

That's why the proclamation of the Gospel is so important in a world that doesn't have a clue about the eternal consequences of their rejection of Jesus. Bertrand Russell's slogan, 'When you die you rot', only applies to the human body and not to the soul.

Oz

Works consulted
[SIZE=11pt]Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]and other early Christian literature[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).[/SIZE]

Morey, R A 1984: Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Robertson, A T 1930. Word Pictures in the New Testament: Matthew and Mark. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

 

[Butch5]

Ages of the ages is also used in Rev 4:9-10, as well as Rev 20:10. Day and night are also describing the throne of heaven and torment in hell. Heaven and hell are both in the afterlife. Day and night, and age of the ages are both being used to describe afterlife. Rev 4:9-10 is definitely eternal language, so we can safely say that Rev 20:10 is also. I'm not convinced that hell is not eternal based on these facts.

But you the phrase isn't saying eternal. An age is an undefined period of time. The phrase ages of ages denotes something continuous as does day and night. However, that doesn't mean that the something will be eternal. An age could be 100 years of a million years, which it is must be defined by other criteria, so just because ages of ages could or may be eternal in one place doesn't necessitate that it is elsewhere. Suppose I said I'm going out for while and I came be back in an hour. Now, lets suppose the next day that you said you're going out for a while. Does that statement require that you come back in a hour? No, a while is an undetermined short period of time. I can go out for a while and be gone 20 minutes and you can go out for a while and be gone 4 hours. The point is the length of time of the word is not defined. It is the same with the word "age." It's an undefined period of time. The term "ages of ages" is used to denote a longer period time.

Even to day we don't use the word "age" to denote eternity. Science classifies things according to age. They have the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, etc. None of these denote eternity. If we take the Stone, Bronze, and Iron ages, we could call that ages of ages, however, it is not eternal.

Even Scripture tells us that an age is not eternal.

KJV 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2Co 4:4 KJV)

It's the "god of this aion"

KJV Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. (Mat 13:40 KJV)

The word world is aion we know this aion ends when Christ returns.

34 And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.
35 "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luk 20:34-36 NKJ)

Here we have two different ages contrasted. Also note that this age and that age are vastly different in length. This age has ending point, yet that age appears to have no end, because Jesus said those who attain that age die no more. The phrase, "die no more" is eternal, no more death, they will not cease to live, thus they are eternal. However, both time periods are called an age, one ends and one doesn't yet both are called an age. Do you see how the length of "that" age is determined not by the word aion, but rather by Jesus words in that age they die no more. It is determine by criteria outside of the word aion itself. Unless we have additional information we cannot tell how long an age is. It's just like a while, we use that word to let someone know that something will be a short time but we don't know exactly how long it will be or we us it when we don't want another person to know exactly how long it will be.

ATP,

It's not your or my place to decide what is the best way to teach about what happens at death. As it happens, under the OT regime (before the cross and resurrection), Jesus used the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to teach about what happens at death for both believer and unbeliever (Lk 16:19-31 ESV).

Your view that in the remainder of the Bible, Hades refers to the grave is the teaching of the JWs and not of orthodox Christianity. Arndt & Gingrich's Greek lexicon defines Hades as 'the underworld as the place of the dead' (e.g. Eccl 9:10; Acts 2:27, 31; Matt 11:23; Luke 10:15) (Arndt & Gingrich 1957:16). Hades combines two Greek words (I read NT Greek and have taught it), a (meaning 'not') and idein ('to see'), i.e. not to see - the meaning of invisible or unseen. This is why the eminent NT Greek scholar, A T Robertson cites McNeile in exegeting Matt 16:18, 'In the Old Testament the "gates of Hades" (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isa. 38:10; Wisd. 16:3; III Macc. 5:51) than death' (Robertson 1930:133). That has led some commentators to translate Hades as the place of disembodied spirits.

So, the KJV has not correctly translated Hades in every occurrence, which it also did with Sheol. This we know: (1) Hades cannot mean death because Koine Greek used thanatos for that. See Rev 1:18 where Hades and thanatos appear alongside each other so we know that they cannot be synonyms. (2) Hades is not the grave because mneema is the NT word for grave. (3) Hades does not mean hell (contrary to the KJV translations) because the final place of punishment according to the NT is Gehenna. (4) Hades can't refer to heaven because that is ouranos. (5) The place of eternal bliss after the resurrection at the end of the age cannot be Hades because that place is described as the new heavens and the new earth or the everlasting kingdom (see Matt 25:34; Rev 21:1) (with help from Robert Morey 1984:83).

What then is Hades? In the Greek version of the OT (the LXX), Hades was translated as the Greek equivalent of Sheol, so when the NT, thanks to progressive revelation, uses Hades, it deals with what happens to the soul of human beings at death, but the NT provides a fuller revelation. The OT Rabbinic understanding of Sheol became the meaning of Hades in Luke 16:19-31, so 'Abraham's bosom was interpreted as Rabbinic understanding that there was a section of Hades reserved for the righteous and the other section for the unrighteous. One of the problem with using Luke 16 to refer to a fuller NT understanding of what happens at death is that it is still dealing with the OT era. So a NT understanding of life after death needs to go beyond the Gospel materials which predominantly still deal with the Old Covenant. Luke 16 teaches us that prior to Christ's resurrection, believers AND unbelievers went to Sheol/Hades.

However, since the resurrection, the NT teaching is that believers at death enter the very presence of God (see 2 Cor 5:6-8; Phil 1:23; Heb 12:22-23). We know that Jesus went to Hades, the world beyond death (see Acts 2:31). In 1 Peter 3:18-22, Peter tells us that Christ proclaimed to 'the spirits now in prison' that his atonement was now complete. So the NT post-resurrection teaching is that at death, believers now go to heaven to await the future resurrection when they will enter the eternal state. What a day that will be! :wacko:

What, then, happens to unbelievers at death since Jesus' resurrection? Second Peter 2:9 (ESV) provides the specifics: 'then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgement', 'To keep' is a present tense infinitive, meaning that it is referring to continuous action. The unrighteous are continuously being kept 'under punishment'. This ESV translation covers up the fact that kolazomenous is a present tense participle and has the meaning of 'continuously being punished'. So right now, the unrighteous are experiencing punishing that does not cease.

There is no Hades as the grave here. That's the false teaching of the JWs. At death, believers go immediately into the presence of the Lord to enjoy God's presence while unbelievers who have died are right now experiencing punishment.

That's why the proclamation of the Gospel is so important in a world that doesn't have a clue about the eternal consequences of their rejection of Jesus. Bertrand Russell's slogan, 'When you die you rot', only applies to the human body and not to the soul.

Oz

Works consulted
[SIZE=11pt]Arndt, W F & Gingrich, F W 1957. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]and other early Christian literature[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (limited edition licensed to Zondervan Publishing House).[/SIZE]

Morey, R A 1984: Death and the Afterlife. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers.

Robertson, A T 1930. Word Pictures in the New Testament: Matthew and Mark. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press.

all of this supposes and unproven premise, that is that man's soul lives on after death. That however, can clearly be shown false from Scripture. Gen 2:7 tells us that a "soul" consists of a man (body) and the breath/spirit of life which is God's

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7 KJV)

Ecc 3 tells us what happens to the man when he dies.

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. {that God...: or, that they might clear God, and see, etc}
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? (Ecc 3:18-21 KJV)

Solomon says they all have one breath/spirit. We know from Gen 2 that that breath/spirit is God's. When a man dies the breath/spirit returns to God and the body returns to the dust. That's all there is, there is nothing left to live. Both of the "soul's" components have been accounted for. Man is a living soul as long as he has the breath of life in Him, when that brath leaves, man is no longer a soul, but rather dust. A soul by definition requires a body.

 

[ATP]

But you the phrase isn't saying eternal. An age is an undefined period of time. The phrase ages of ages denotes something continuous as does day and night. However, that doesn't mean that the something will be eternal. An age could be 100 years of a million years, which it is must be defined by other criteria, so just because ages of ages could or may be eternal in one place doesn't necessitate that it is elsewhere. Suppose I said I'm going out for while and I came be back in an hour. Now, lets suppose the next day that you said you're going out for a while. Does that statement require that you come back in a hour? No, a while is an undetermined short period of time. I can go out for a while and be gone 20 minutes and you can go out for a while and be gone 4 hours. The point is the length of time of the word is not defined. It is the same with the word "age." It's an undefined period of time. The term "ages of ages" is used to denote a longer period time.

Even to day we don't use the word "age" to denote eternity. Science classifies things according to age. They have the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, etc. None of these denote eternity. If we take the Stone, Bronze, and Iron ages, we could call that ages of ages, however, it is not eternal.

Even Scripture tells us that an age is not eternal.

KJV 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2Co 4:4 KJV)

It's the "god of this aion"

KJV Matthew 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. (Mat 13:40 KJV)

The word world is aion we know this aion ends when Christ returns.

34 And Jesus answered and said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage.
35 "But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36 "nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luk 20:34-36 NKJ)

Here we have two different ages contrasted. Also note that this age and that age are vastly different in length. This age has ending point, yet that age appears to have no end, because Jesus said those who attain that age die no more. The phrase, "die no more" is eternal, no more death, they will not cease to live, thus they are eternal. However, both time periods are called an age, one ends and one doesn't yet both are called an age. Do you see how the length of "that" age is determined not by the word aion, but rather by Jesus words in that age they die no more. It is determine by criteria outside of the word aion itself. Unless we have additional information we cannot tell how long an age is. It's just like a while, we use that word to let someone know that something will be a short time but we don't know exactly how long it will be or we us it when we don't want another person to know exactly how long it will be.

I appreciate the post. The fact of the matter is, is that John used "day and night" to describe heaven and hell. He didn't have too, but he did. You also assume there's a literal day and night in Rev 20:10, but I can't find scripture that points to the New Earth ever having a sun and moon outside the city. - ATP

 

[OzSpen]

all of this supposes and unproven premise, that is that man's soul lives on after death. That however, can clearly be shown false from Scripture. Gen 2:7 tells us that a "soul" consists of a man (body) and the breath/spirit of life which is God's

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7 KJV)

Ecc 3 tells us what happens to the man when he dies.

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. {that God...: or, that they might clear God, and see, etc}
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? (Ecc 3:18-21 KJV)

Solomon says they all have one breath/spirit. We know from Gen 2 that that breath/spirit is God's. When a man dies the breath/spirit returns to God and the body returns to the dust. That's all there is, there is nothing left to live. Both of the "soul's" components have been accounted for. Man is a living soul as long as he has the breath of life in Him, when that brath leaves, man is no longer a soul, but rather dust. A soul by definition requires a body.

Butch,

We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this to my post at #224. You did not deal with the issues I raised and the exegesis I provided. Instead, you were off and running with your own topic. That means you committed a red herring logical fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning.

If you continue this approach to my posts, I'll not post any further to you on this topic as the content of my posts is irrelevant to your answer, hence the red herring fallacy.

Oz

 

[ATP]

Butch,

We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this to my post at #224. You did not deal with the issues I raised and the exegesis I provided. Instead, you were off and running with your own topic. That means you committed a red herring logical fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning.

If you continue this approach to my posts, I'll not post any further to you on this topic as the content of my posts is irrelevant to your answer, hence the red herring fallacy.

Oz

There was nothing wrong with his post Oz. Dead people are not walking around the third heaven as "breath". That is silly.

 

[StanJ]

I would submit that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is not about the afterlife at all, but rather about the demise of the priesthood. You suggested that the rich man was was an unbeliever, yet the Scriptures don't say that. Actually, the Scriptures don't say that either man was a believer or an unbeliever. There are a lot of reasons not to understand this parable as pertaining to life after death.

Actually it was about Jesus' resurrection, but the setting was real unless you think Jesus was lying about the after life?

 

[OzSpen]

There was nothing wrong with his post Oz. Dead people are not walking around the third heaven as "breath". That is silly.

False logic is still false logic no matter the protest of 'nothing wrong with his post'. Don't you understand how logical discussion is closed down when people use a logical fallacy? Here you have given me another red herring fallacy when compared with the content of what I gave at #224. Until you understand what is done with the use of logical fallacies, we cannot have a reasonable conversation.

I've given a link to the nature of a red herring logical fallacy. You might like to study the other logical fallacies that we can all be guilty of using.

 

[ATP]

Jesus used the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to teach about what happens at death for both believer and unbeliever (Lk 16:19-31 ESV).

We already discussed that Luke 16 parable is not referring to the afterlife. See post 218.

However, since the resurrection, the NT teaching is that believers at death enter the very presence of God (see 2 Cor 5:6-8; Phil 1:23; Heb 12:22-23).

We already discussed that 2 Cor 5:6-8 speaks of the first resurrection, Phil 1:23 works off of those scriptures. What does Heb 12:22-23 have to do with any of this.

In 1 Peter 3:18-22, Peter tells us that Christ proclaimed to 'the spirits now in prison' that his atonement was now complete. So the NT post-resurrection teaching is that at death, believers now go to heaven to await the future resurrection when they will enter the eternal state. What a day that will be! :wacko:

Actually, you're taking this passage out of context. 1 Peter 3:18-22 and 2 Peter 2:4-8 work side by side and both mention fallen angels in the days of Noah. These are the spirits that were preached too. If you take a closer look, He was actually making a proclamation to the evil spirits in Tartarus. The KJV translates three different places as hell and it causes much confusion. There are, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. Hades is the grave, Gehenna is the valley outside of Jerusalem. Then there is Tartarus, this is a location in the lower depths of Hades where God has reserved the evil angles in chains until the judgment.

2 Pet 2:4 YLT For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast them down to Tartarus, did deliver them to judgment, having been reserved,

Several translations translate this word Tartarus as hell and it's confusing because people think all three places, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus are the same place, they are not. Consider Peters words.

2 Pet 2:4-8 YLT For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast them down to Tartarus, did deliver them to judgment, having been reserved, 5 and the old world did not spare, but the eighth person, Noah, of righteousness a preacher, did keep, a flood on the world of the impious having brought, 6 and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah having turned to ashes, with an overthrow did condemn, an example to those about to be impious having set them; 7 and righteous Lot, worn down by the conduct in lasciviousness of the impious, He did rescue, 8 for in seeing and hearing, the righteous man, dwelling among them, day by day the righteous soul with unlawful works was harassing.

If Peter is giving this in order it would seem that the "messengers who sinned," the disobedient angles, are those of Noah's day. I believe these are the angles in prison that Jesus went and made the proclamation too.

1 Pet 3:18-22 YLT because also Christ once for sin did suffer -- righteous for unrighteous -- that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach, 20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; 21 also to which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone on to heaven -- messengers, and authorities, and powers, having been subjected to him.

I believe the phrases in bold is what Jesus proclaimed to these spirits in prison, that all authority had been given to Him.

 

[OzSpen]

We already discussed that Luke 16 parable is not referring to the afterlife. See post 218.


We already discussed that 2 Cor 5:6-8 speaks of the first resurrection, Phil 1:23 works off of those scriptures. What does Heb 12:22-23 have to do with any of this.


Actually, you're taking this passage out of context. 1 Peter 3:18-22 and 2 Peter 2:4-8 work side by side and both mention fallen angels in the days of Noah. These are the spirits that were preached too. If you take a closer look, He was actually making a proclamation to the evil spirits in Tartarus. The KJV translates three different places as hell and it causes much confusion. There are, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. Hades is the grave, Gehenna is the valley outside of Jerusalem. Then there is Tartarus, this is a location in the lower depths of Hades where God has reserved the evil angles in chains until the judgment.

2 Pet 2:4 YLT For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast them down to Tartarus, did deliver them to judgment, having been reserved,

Several translations translate this word Tartarus as hell and it's confusing because people think all three places, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus are the same place, they are not. Consider Peters words.

2 Pet 2:4-8 YLT For if God messengers who sinned did not spare, but with chains of thick gloom, having cast them down to Tartarus, did deliver them to judgment, having been reserved, 5 and the old world did not spare, but the eighth person, Noah, of righteousness a preacher, did keep, a flood on the world of the impious having brought, 6 and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah having turned to ashes, with an overthrow did condemn, an example to those about to be impious having set them; 7 and righteous Lot, worn down by the conduct in lasciviousness of the impious, He did rescue, 8 for in seeing and hearing, the righteous man, dwelling among them, day by day the righteous soul with unlawful works was harassing.

If Peter is giving this in order it would seem that the "messengers who sinned," the disobedient angles, are those of Noah's day. I believe these are the angles in prison that Jesus went and made the proclamation too.

1 Pet 3:18-22 YLT because also Christ once for sin did suffer -- righteous for unrighteous -- that he might lead us to God, having been put to death indeed, in the flesh, and having been made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach, 20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water; 21 also to which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question of a good conscience in regard to God,) through the rising again of Jesus Christ, 22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone on to heaven -- messengers, and authorities, and powers, having been subjected to him.

I believe the phrases in bold is what Jesus proclaimed to these spirits in prison, that all authority had been given to Him.

You are avoiding what I wrote at #230. You've given me another red herring logical fallacy. We can't have a logical discussion when you do this.

 

[Butch5]

Actually it was about Jesus' resurrection, but the setting was real unless you think Jesus was lying about the after life?

The resurrection is mentioned in the parable but that's not the point of the parable. Jesus wasn't speaking about the afterlife, he was speaking of the demise of the priesthood. If one follows the flow of conversation from chapter 14 through 16 Jesus never says anything at all about the afterlife. He chastises the religious leaders. There's no reason to suddenly insert an interpretation that not only doesn't fit the context by has not been the topic anywhere in the conversation.

Butch,

We cannot have a rational conversation when you do this to my post at #224. You did not deal with the issues I raised and the exegesis I provided. Instead, you were off and running with your own topic. That means you committed a red herring logical fallacy. It is fallacious reasoning.

If you continue this approach to my posts, I'll not post any further to you on this topic as the content of my posts is irrelevant to your answer, hence the red herring fallacy.

Oz

Oz,

Most post isn't a logical fallacy. I reject your premise, that the wicked dead are being punished before the resurrection. In order to prove your premise it must be proven that man can somehow be alive between his death and resurrection. My post was to show that it is not possible for man to be alive between his death and resurrection therefore the premise of your argument cannot be true, therefore the dead and cannot be in constant conscious torment while they await the resurrection.

So, there was no red herring, but rather a post to disprove the premise on which your argument is based.

I appreciate the post. The fact of the matter is, is that John used "day and night" to describe heaven and hell. He didn't have too, but he did. You also assume there's a literal day and night in Rev 20:10, but I can't find scripture that points to the New Earth ever having a sun and moon outside the city. - ATP

Hi ATP,

God said He was going to create new heavens and new Earth. To say there is no sun or moon we would have to just assume that. I see no reason to make that assumption. The passages you posted say there will be no day or night in the city. That is what I would expect if it was filled with the Glory of God. I wouldn't assume because the Israelites had a pillar of fire in the desert that there was no night in North America.

However, Isaiah does mention the moon in the renewed creation.

22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. {from one new...: Heb. from new moon to his new moon, and from sabbath to his sabbath}
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. (Isa 66:22-24 KJV)

So, the moon will be there, and in order to see the moon one needs the sun. However the new heavens and Earth are not different bodies, the are restored bodies. Peter said,


19 "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
20 "and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before,
21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. (Act 3:19-21 NKJ)

In America we think of new as another one or a different one. However, the Scriptures speak of a renewing of the creation, that would include the sun and the moon. Unless there is specific Scripture that telsl us that certain bodies won't be there I don't see why they wouldn't be.

Also, Rev 21:25 and 22:5 says, there will be no night there, yet Rev. 20:10 speaks of day and night. I think this shows that Rev. 21:25 and 22:5 are speaking of the city and not the entire World.


5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. (Rev 22:5 NKJ)

That the passage says they have no need of the sun indicates to me that it is there. The passage also says that they have no need of a lamp. If this passage means there is no sun then to be consistent we would have to assume that there will be no lamps on the planet either.

 

[logabe]

Likewise, Jesus said,

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
(Mat 25:1 KJV)

Butch... are you sure you want to go there. You're attaching the Holy Grail of most
Christians that believe in the eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. That is the
scripture that they use to teach their followers to fear the place where they are going
to go, so as to keep them in their flock.

Wow... I commend you brother, although you want have many that will accept you
on this forum, but I really like what you're saying.

When they debate over Matt. 25:46, they say how can it be eternal life, but it can't
be eternal punishment?

Because it is neither. It's just what you said. It's age abiding life and it's age abiding
judgment or punishment. What's the big deal?

The big deal is you will be living among people that are still mortal, but you will be
immortal and you will have the abilities that Jesus had when He rose from the dead.
We will be ministering to people in our immortal bodies that they can see and it want
take much for them to believe.

That is called age abiding life, because the age of Tabernacles will end in a thousand
years, but we will go into another age of abiding life where we will be teaching the
people the ways of the Lord during the AGE OF THE 2ND DEATH.

What a God! What a Plan!

Logabe

 

[Butch5]

Butch... are you sure you want to go there. You're attaching the Holy Grail of most
Christians that believe in the eternal damnation in the Lake of Fire. That is the
scripture that they use to teach their followers to fear the place where they are going
to go, so as to keep them in their flock.

Wow... I commend you brother, although you want have many that will accept you
on this forum, but I really like what you're saying.

When they debate over Matt. 25:46, they say how can it be eternal life, but it can't
be eternal punishment?

Because it is neither. It's just what you said. It's age abiding life and it's age abiding
judgment or punishment. What's the big deal?

The big deal is you will be living among people that are still mortal, but you will be
immortal and you will have the abilities that Jesus had when He rose from the dead.
We will be ministering to people in our immortal bodies that they can see and it want
take much for them to believe.

That is called age abiding life, because the age of Tabernacles will end in a thousand
years, but we will go into another age of abiding life where we will be teaching the
people the ways of the Lord during the AGE OF THE 2ND DEATH.

What a God! What a Plan!

Logabe

Hi Logabe,

I know there won't be many who listen but there are usually a few who really want to understand. When we look at how many times aion is used in Scripture of things that end, I think it's quite clear that the word doesn't mean forever or eternal. I think the problem comes from theologians who see the words owlam, aion, and aionios applied to God and then assume that if God is eternal then these word must mean eternal.

 

[logabe]

Hi Logabe,

I know there won't be many who listen but there are usually a few who really want to understand. When we look at how many times aion is used in Scripture of things that end, I think it's quite clear that the word doesn't mean forever or eternal. I think the problem comes from theologians who see the words owlam, aion, and aionios applied to God and then assume that if God is eternal then these word must mean eternal.

I always wondered was "forever" eternal, but what does forever and ever mean. "Double eternal". No, it doesn't
make sense in the English language to say forever and ever, but it does make sense if you use it as from Age to
Age.

What a God! What a Plan!

Logabe

 

[ATP]

You are avoiding what I wrote at #230. You've given me another red herring logical fallacy. We can't have a logical discussion when you do this.

Everything's a fallacy, yeah I heard you.

However, Isaiah does mention the moon in the renewed creation.

22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. {from one new...: Heb. from new moon to his new moon, and from sabbath to his sabbath}
24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. (Isa 66:22-24 KJV)

I would submit that verse 23, 24 is about the millennium and not the New Earth. Also, why would John use "day and night" figuratively inside the city, but have it be literal when describing hell (outside) the city. Seems strange to me. What would the sun be used for if not for heat Rev 7:16? Isn't Acts 3:21 more about repentance and the fall of man than outer space?

 

[Butch5]

I always wondered was "forever" eternal, but what does forever and ever mean. "Double eternal". No, it doesn't
make sense in the English language to say forever and ever, but it does make sense if you use it as from Age to
Age.

What a God! What a Plan!

Logabe

That's true. If forever means eternity, how can you add more time to that?

 

[StanJ]

The resurrection is mentioned in the parable but that's not the point of the parable. Jesus wasn't speaking about the afterlife, he was speaking of the demise of the priesthood. If one follows the flow of conversation from chapter 14 through 16 Jesus never says anything at all about the afterlife. He chastises the religious leaders. There's no reason to suddenly insert an interpretation that not only doesn't fit the context by has not been the topic anywhere in the conversation.

It is the POINT of this analogy Butch. Read v31. It has NOTHING to do with the priesthood. There are three distinct and separate teachings in Luke 16, and that is NOT one of them.

 

[ATP]

It is the POINT of this analogy Butch. Read v31. It has NOTHING to do with the priesthood. There are three distinct and separate teachings in Luke 16, and that is NOT one of them.

Let's take a look at Luke 16:19 NIV “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.

1. Purple is a color which is used in Scripture for the following: priestly garments (Ex 39:2, 24, 29); royal apparel (Judges 8:26; Esther 8:15); and is synonymous with wealth in Rev 18:16.

2. Fine linen was used extensively in the priestly garments such as the ephod, robe, mitre, and bonnet. (Ex 39). Linen is used as a symbol of wealth in Rev 18:16.

3. Only one class in Israel was habitually clothed in purple and linen and fared sumptuously every day4 - the High Priestly class of Sadducees.