"Hell doesn't last forever"..God is merciful

[kerwin]

Anybody who is fluent in English and grammar knows that Paul is talking about himself so obviously you are not fluent in English or grammar and there's no use arguing with you about something you refuse to admit.
..

Even if the claim I did not know what Paul is talking about was true, and it is not, you argument is flawed because miscommunication is a known to occur.

Your error itself stems you confusing your own ideas with Paul's and the fact I disagree with them. That behavior is just a work of the flesh.

Your accusation falls on death ears because you are not an experts and experts have a higher opinion of my skills in English. In other words, I am not that insecure in my English skills.

..
If you would have read the link I posted you would understand how Paul was writing and in what fashion, but as you refuse to read it and/or you were unable to comprehend it, then there's nothing else that can be said until you learn.
...

I did skim through the argument and the male writes way more than required to make his point. Some is supposed to be entertaining but I find it an obstruction. Never the less, his argument is the context what reveals Paul's speaking. Verse five is deal breaker on that since Paul makes it clear he is not boasting about himself and pretending to be humble. That would be false humility.

Knowing that it seems obvious the writer believes Paul should have mentioned his encounter with Jesus in his defense of his apostleship and so forced that interpretation into Paul's words when Paul instead confessed that he would not boast. Those words infer that speaking events that occurred on the road to Damascus, Lebanon would have been boasting because his hearers already knew the story. He chose to demonstrate humility by boasting of the accomplishments of another.

That is an explanation with some speculation based on knowledge. You have a different knowledge base so may make different speculation of why each male made the choices they did but the bottom line is Paul is clearly not speaking of himself because of the wording of verse 5 and Paul's aversion to acting with false humility.

 

[kerwin]

No one so far that I've seen on this thread has a problem admitting to their faults except for you. You are unteachable but you can used to convey the truth to others who are hungry to hear it or willing to at least.

You should know that claim is false since I have already said I think faster that I write and so omit words and other things and I also do not always edit my work. I also have a poor memory and sometimes make errors when I rely on it. Once in while I get erratic. In other words I have quite a few not all which I have mentioned but lack of English fluency is not one. On the other hand some make say I lack trust in my fellow human beings.

 

[StanJ]

You should know that claim is false since I have already said I think faster that I write and so omit words and other things and I also do not always edit my work. I also have a poor memory and sometimes make errors when I rely on it. Once in while I get erratic. In other words I have quite a few not all which I have mentioned but lack of English fluency is not one. On the other hand some make say I lack trust in my fellow human beings.

Everybody thinks faster than they write. Have you ever heard of proofreading? I'm afraid your problem is not thinking faster than you write, and despite your denial, your problem is that you don't fully understand the English language or how to use the vernacular of this forum.

 

[StanJ]

Even if the claim I did not know what Paul is talking about was true, and it is not, you argument is flawed because miscommunication is a known to occur.

Your error itself stems you confusing your own ideas with Paul's and the fact I disagree with them. That behavior is just a work of the flesh.

Your accusation falls on death ears because you are not an experts and experts have a higher opinion of my skills in English. In other words, I am not that insecure in my English skills.




I did skim through the argument and the male writes way more than required to make his point. Some is supposed to be entertaining but I find it an obstruction. Never the less, his argument is the context what reveals Paul's speaking. Verse five is deal breaker on that since Paul makes it clear he is not boasting about himself and pretending to be humble. That would be false humility.

Knowing that it seems obvious the writer believes Paul should have mentioned his encounter with Jesus in his defense of his apostleship and so forced that interpretation into Paul's words when Paul instead confessed that he would not boast. Those words infer that speaking events that occurred on the road to Damascus, Lebanon would have been boasting because his hearers already knew the story. He chose to demonstrate humility by boasting of the accomplishments of another.

That is an explanation with some speculation based on knowledge. You have a different knowledge base so may make different speculation of why each male made the choices they did but the bottom line is Paul is clearly not speaking of himself because of the wording of verse 5 and Paul's aversion to acting with false humility.

Well I can't say I'm surprised at this, because you obviously skim through the Bible when you read it as well, which is why you come up with these very implausible opinions.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/12-2.htm

 

[kerwin]

Well I can't say I'm surprised at this, because you obviously skim through the Bible when you read it as well, which is why you come up with these very implausible opinions.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/12-2.htm

I know the argument and it essentially claims Paul is boasting about himself even as he claims he is not and is not addressing that none of the facts actually match from what is written in Acts and what he writes in 2 Corinthians. There is not one word about Paul being snatched up into any of the heavens nor is there a mention of his seeing Paradise. The commentaries also ignore the historical principle of exegesis or they would be aware of the already existing teaching of the seven heavens.

In conclusion I see no support for any interpretation but that Paul was referring to another man that was seized up into the third of multiple of heavens. Seven is number is the book of Enoch; which I know was around and read at the time Paul wrote his letters.

 

[Phoneman777]

JOHN 3:16 REVISED

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting, happy, joyful, wonderful, sublime, awesome, off-the-chain, cracker-lackin' chillaxin' COMFORT life." John 3:16

(Apparently God got it all wrong when He said "everlasting life" because everyone believes we already HAVE everlasting life in either the smoking or non-smoking section, right?)

 

[kerwin]

JOHN 3:16 REVISED

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting, happy, joyful, wonderful, sublime, awesome, off-the-chain, cracker-lackin' chillaxin' COMFORT life." John 3:16

(Apparently God got it all wrong when He said "everlasting life" because everyone believes we already HAVE everlasting life in either the smoking or non-smoking section, right?)

I am not included in everybody since I do not believe all human beings have everlasting life. I believe many have everlasting death. On the other hand I thought you believed in universal salvation which would render Jesus' sacrifice meaningless. Perhaps I am incorrect.

 

[kerwin]

Well I can't say I'm surprised at this, because you obviously skim through the Bible when you read it as well, which is why you come up with these very implausible opinions.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/2_corinthians/12-2.htm

I am not sure about the seven heaven as the idea three heavens also has biblical merit though it may be flawed in looking at scripture from a modern point of view. Seven is a symbolic number and may be used in that sense and thus should not be taken literal.

 

[StanJ]

I am not sure about the seven heaven as the idea three heavens also has biblical merit though it may be flawed in looking at scripture from a modern point of view. Seven is a symbolic number and may be used in that sense and thus should not be taken literal.

I see you're just skimming again. Didn't really delve into this link did you?

 

[StanJ]

I know the argument and it essentially claims Paul is boasting about himself even as he claims he is not and is not addressing that none of the facts actually match from what is written in Acts and what he writes in 2 Corinthians. There is not one word about Paul being snatched up into any of the heavens nor is there a mention of his seeing Paradise. The commentaries also ignore the historical principle of exegesis or they would be aware of the already existing teaching of the seven heavens.

In conclusion I see no support for any interpretation but that Paul was referring to another man that was seized up into the third of multiple of heavens. Seven is number is the book of Enoch; which I know was around and read at the time Paul wrote his letters.

Obviously you did not read the link.

 

[kerwin]

I see you're just skimming again. Didn't really delve into this link did you?

I went through there explanation but they fail to address verse 5 though they had their ideas of why Paul might speak of himself in the third person.

On the other hand Paul does reluctantly boast in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33 but in the first person and there is a connection to that so why would he bother changing to the third person if he was continuing to boast and not teaching about boasting as he throughout his "boasting".

There is not much evidence to support the case that he is speaking of himself behind possible timing and the fact he is boasting up to the end of 2 Corinthians 11. There is definitely things that disagree including the disagreement between the facts in each event and verse 5.

I did get the idea that there may have been a first century three heavens doctrine though I have my doubts since I doubt there was knowledge about a vacuum above the earth at that time.

 

[Born_Again]

I went through there explanation but they fail to address verse 5 though they had their ideas of why Paul might speak of himself in the third person.

On the other hand Paul does reluctantly boast in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33 but in the first person and there is a connection to that so why would he bother changing to the third person if he was continuing to boast and not teaching about boasting as he throughout his "boasting".

There is not much evidence to support the case that he is speaking of himself behind possible timing and the fact he is boasting up to the end of 2 Corinthians 11. There is definitely things that disagree including the disagreement between the facts in each event and verse 5.

I did get the idea that there may have been a first century three heavens doctrine though I have my doubts since I doubt there was knowledge about a vacuum above the earth at that time.

What rule is there that you cant change from the 3rd person to the first person? C'mon. That is weak, Kerwin. You cant base your argument on the likelyhood that he would not have changed the speakers perspective. You are going to need something a bit more solid than that.

 

[junobet]

First of all sorry for the late answer, Oz. I’ve been away for the Weekend.

junobet,

Your theology on 'destroy' is not consistent with the rest of biblical revelation. Revelation 14:10-11 (ESV) tells us what that eternal destruction is about - torment forever and ever (for aeons of aeons) 'with no rest, day or night'. God's standard of consequences is sure different from ours and his are eternal.

Did we not already agree to disagree on the correct translation of "αἰῶνας αἰώνων"? To me an aeon still doesn’t quite equal eternity and I still don't understand why you want to base your translation on the authority of Augustine, a Latin speaking churchfather whose Greek (by his own admission) was rather lousy. But if that’s the translation you want to go for, pray do. It doesn’t change a thing in the argument I was trying to make when entering this thread: Did God lie when He did not destroy Niniveh after all?

As for the Book of Revelation: I’ve got to admit that for most of my life I shared Luther’s dislike for it. But – while I still wonder why so many Christians here try to understand the rest of the Bible from its most difficult to understand book rather than the other way around - in recent years it has grown on me, including verses 14:10-11. IMHO that it speaks of fire in connection with sulphur here (a known disinfectant in the ancient world) gives us a clue that this fire has a cleansing function, just like for example in Zechariah 13:9:

“And I will bring that surviving third through,
testing them as if through fire,
purifying them like silver,
assaying them like gold.
They will call on my name,
and I will answer them.
I will say, ‘This is my people,’
and they will say, ‘The Lord is my God.’"

What a fine metaphor this is: in my experience to realize the full scale of one’s guilt and to feel deep remorse can indeed feel like being burned.
And of course let’s not forget that the Book of Revelation culminates in the promise: “See, I am making all things new!” (Rev. 21:5)

Are you suggesting you have to be perfect to get in the narrow gate? What is your theology of getting through the 'narrow gate'. How can we do it?

Yes Oz, when you read that verse in its context, the Sermon of the Mount, you’ll see that it indeed says that we have to be perfect to get through the narrow gate. While I try hard to follow the moral advice Jesus gives in this Sermon, personally I’m not so sure whether my righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). So why do I still have hope to enter the kingdom of heaven? Because the Gospels go on to tell us about the cross. Jesus knew that hardly any of us would make it through the narrow gate and so He “gave himself as a ransom for all people” (1 Tim. 2:6).

You speak of 'my hope that hell is empty'. Do you support a theology of universalism that hell will be empty and all will be saved?

Oz

I’ll explain my views as often to you as you like, but I’m not quite sure how to make myself any clearer. If you are looking for a more sophisticated explanation than the one I could give you may want to read that Barth in your bookshelf and throw in some Moltmann and von Balthasar.

I am indeed a universalist in that I firmly believe in “Christus Victor”. The Bible tells me that God sent Christ to “save the world through Him” (John 3:17) and I trust Christ accomplishes what He has been sent for and that finally “all things shall be subdued unto him” and “that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:22-28). I don’t think anybody can still be in the evil state of mind that we call hell, once God is all in them.

That said, of course my argument concerning Niniveh works both ways. So considering God’s sovereignty I can’t entirely rule out the possibility of hell. What I’m sure of though is that I must never ever consider this possibility for anybody but myself. Else I’d be judging others and surely you know what the Bible has to say about that. Knowing my own depravity, I’d say I certainly deserve punishment. But so far, whenever I pondered ending up in hell, my thoughts eventually led me to a prayer like this:
“O Lord, in thee I have trusted: let me never be put to shame. And if an angel from heaven were to assure me that I had been cast out from thy sight, I would not believe him. Even if thou thyself, O God Most High, wert to say that thou hadst damned me for all eternity, I would not listen to thy words. Pardon me, O Lord, but I would not believe thee. For even if thou slayest me and bringest me down to hell, I will still hope in thee for ever.” (Cardinal Bona, quoted in Hans Urs von Balthasar: Prayer; Ignatius Press, 1986)

 

[StanJ]

I went through there explanation but they fail to address verse 5 though they had their ideas of why Paul might speak of himself in the third person.

On the other hand Paul does reluctantly boast in 2 Corinthians 11:16-33 but in the first person and there is a connection to that so why would he bother changing to the third person if he was continuing to boast and not teaching about boasting as he throughout his "boasting".

There is not much evidence to support the case that he is speaking of himself behind possible timing and the fact he is boasting up to the end of 2 Corinthians 11. There is definitely things that disagree including the disagreement between the facts in each event and verse 5.

I did get the idea that there may have been a first century three heavens doctrine though I have my doubts since I doubt there was knowledge about a vacuum above the earth at that time.

Like I said, you skimmed through it, looked for a few issues to equivocate about and then posted.
The issue we've been dealing with is far from the OP, and as usual every time you're confronted with an answer that refutes your position you deflect to something else. Obviously that's all you want to do is deflect so on that basis I can't continually deal with you and you're not willing to learn.
I'm asking that this threat be closed due to that very reason.

 

[Phoneman777]

I am not included in everybody since I do not believe all human beings have everlasting life. I believe many have everlasting death. On the other hand I thought you believed in universal salvation which would render Jesus' sacrifice meaningless. Perhaps I am incorrect.

I'm an Annihilationist. I believe, as the Bible teaches, that death is the opposite of life - the cessation and negation of life - not a continuation of it in some state of fearful, wretched existence. If the wicked are cast alive into eternal torment and remain their tormented for all eternity, how the flip is that death? It's "eternal, everlasting life in torment".

Everlasting life is promised only to the righteous. Everlasting death, aka "the Second Death", is the sentence of the wicked who, after the 1,000 Years are finished, are resurrected to a Second Life in the Resurrection of Damnation, judged, and sentenced to the Second Death - everlasting death - a complete cessation and negation of life - a permanent fate from which there will be no resurrection, simple as that.

 

[junobet]

Like I said, you skimmed through it, looked for a few issues to equivocate about and then posted.
The issue we've been dealing with is far from the OP, and as usual every time you're confronted with an answer that refutes your position you deflect to something else. Obviously that's all you want to do is deflect so on that basis I can't continually deal with you and you're not willing to learn.
I'm asking that this threat be closed due to that very reason.

You want an entire thread closed only because in it you could not convince another poster of your position? Come on, Stan! Just let it rest and move on.

 

[OzSpen]

Did we not already agree to disagree on the correct translation of "αἰῶνας αἰώνων"? To me an aeon still doesn’t quite equal eternity and I still don't understand why you want to base your translation on the authority of Augustine, a Latin speaking churchfather whose Greek (by his own admission) was rather lousy. But if that’s the translation you want to go for, pray do. It doesn’t change a thing in the argument I was trying to make when entering this thread: Did God lie when He did not destroy Niniveh after all?

You seem to forget that I cited a NT Greek distinguished exegete, R C H Lenski, who confirmed what "αἰῶνας αἰώνων" (aiwnas aiwnwn = aeons of aeons) means. You seem to have forgotten that he stated it was :

the strongest expression for our "forever".... many eons, each of vast duration, are multiplied by many more, which we intimate by "forever and ever." Human language is able to use only temporal terms to express what is altogether beyond time and is timelessness. The Greek takes its greatest term for time, the eon, pluralizes this, and then multiplies it by its own plural (Lenski1943/1963:48).

Of course eon won't mean eternity to you because you don't want 'eternal punishment' to mean God punishing unbelievers in hell (Gehenna) forever and ever.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'm an Annihilationist. I believe, as the Bible teaches, that death is the opposite of life - the cessation and negation of life - not a continuation of it in some state of fearful, wretched existence. If the wicked are cast alive into eternal torment and remain their tormented for all eternity, how the flip is that death? It's "eternal, everlasting life in torment".

It doesn't seem to enter your thinking that when I say that 'my battery died' that it was not annihilated. This week, the oven in our kitchen died. It will not work but it has not ceased to exist. It continues as an oven but is in a state of wretched existence, so much so that my wife bought a new one yesterday and it will be installed by an electrician tomorrow.

Annihilationism is a cheap way out of avoiding exegesis of the Greek text. We know that annihilation is not a biblical doctrine. When we check the context of 2 Thess. 1:7-9 (ESV), it tells us:

• unbelievers will be repaid with affliction;
• In this affliction, God is inflicting vengeance;
• This vengeance is called ‘eternal destruction’;
• And it means being ‘away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might’.

Oz

 

[StanJ]

You want an entire thread closed only because in it you could not convince another poster of your position? Come on, Stan! Just let it rest and move on.

I can't convince somebody who is inconvincible. I think after 180 posts it's obvious that there is no movement on this issue. People are going around in circles and running down all sorts of rabbit trails.

 

[n2thelight]

The apostle Paul summed up the whole matter of people’s reward for sin when he wrote:

Could anything be clearer than this passage? The wages for sin is shown to be death, and eternal life is stated to be a gift from God, not something people already have. This is consistently expressed from Genesis to Revelation, notice:


ROMANS 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God iseternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.
NOTE: See the commentary on this proverb in the appendix Old Testament Hell Verses if you don’t believe it is applicable to us today in an absolute sense.


MATTHEW 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad the road that leads to destructionand many enter through it, (14) but small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

JOHN 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

ROMANS 8:13
For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.

GALATIANS 6:8
The one who sows to please the sinful nature from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the spirit, from the spirit will reapeternal life.

PSALM 145:20 (NKJV)
The LORD preserves all who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy.

PROVERBS 11:19
The truly righteous man attains life, but he who pursues evil goes to his death.
All these passages clearly describe the two separate destinies of the righteous and the unrighteous. The “righteous” are people who are in right-standing with God because they’ve accepted his sacrifice for their sins*, the “unrighteous” are those who are not in-right-standing with their Creator because they’ve rejected his offer of salvation. The former will inherit eternal life, whereas the latter will reap the wages of sin and be destroyed.

*NOTE: Please don’t misinterpret this description of people as “righteous.” Our own righteousness apart from Christ is as “filthy rags” in God’s holy sight (Isaiah 64:6). To become in right-standing with God we must let go of our fleshly ‘righteousness’ in acceptance of God’s “gift of righteousness,” which comes through spiritual regeneration through Christ(see Romans 5:17 and 2 Corinthians 5:21). This is positionalrighteousness; practical righteous naturally occurs as the believer learns to put off the “old self” — the flesh — and live according to their new nature, which is “created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:22-24).

Yet those who adhere to the eternal torture doctrine mysteriously don’t accept this blatantly clear biblical truth. They don’t believe that the two polar opposites are life and death; they believe the two polar opposites are eternal life in heavenly bliss and eternal life in burning torment. Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? They may not phrase it in such an open manner, but this is what they actually believe if we’re honest about it.

http://www.hellhadesafterlife.com/hell/annihilationism-traditionalism-problem-hell