Is punishment in hell eternal?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

waquinas

New Member
Apr 24, 2008
294
0
0
71
The reference in (2 Cor 5.1) is translated "eternal" in nearly every translation (Young excepted), eternal is a word relating to time, in that it expresses something that has no end point in time. Whether eternal expresses something which "transcends" time as we know it, am not sure we can say with any certainty. Clearly God transcends, He is outside of time. Am not as certain about anything else God has made stands "outside" time with Him. We could go around and around on this but even saying "time will be no more" does not even necessarily mean outside of time. So suggesting that because God both transcends time and is eternal, that therefore the word "eternal" means "outside of time" is not accurate. The equal phrase "never ending" expresses the same idea, time passing without end - not something outside of time.Believe my statement in that regards stands, especially in that the word even in use by Paul is a adjective, it is not being used as a proper noun label to mean heavenly body. Just as the writer in Matthew 5 is using an adjective. The fact that Paul here refers to a our future bodies in comparison to our present one does not alter the meaning or the usage of the word. The other verses cited can be equally treated.
"For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption.
An unproven assertion. Noticed the need to broaden the scope of the verse to attempt to make a point. (things of Heaven rather than just our bodies which is the topic of almost the entire chapter). Clearly the writer is refering to two different bodies and contrasting them, one being in heaven. I fail to see why we must see the use of the adjective in this verse as the writer labeling a larger category of all "indissoluble things of heaven". This is adding meaning to that Chapter that is not present in order to present an understanding of a word to justify a belief system already held.
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal." -2 Corinthians 4:18In this verse, aionios describes the eternal truths which human eyes and ears have not seen nor heard, for these truths belong to the unseen realm of God as opposed to the visible world of change..
While this all sounds good and well, it neither addresses what the writer is speaking of or the proper understanding of aionios. He is not talking about "truths" here. This is a lead in to the next Chapter (see notes above). Here in chapter 4 the writer speaks of many disagreeable things in this life (things which are seen) and is stating that our hope, the reason we do not despair is because our hope, what we are to "look to" is in things not seen. Yes Paul speaks of temporal and eternal, contrasting the two, but I must disagree that he is absolutely NOT contrasting sets of truths as you suggest. Again I do not see how we can take verses out of context, use them however we wish to justify a position and suggest that is the meaning being conveyed by a particular word. Context matters.
"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." - John 6:27Aionios here refers to that Heavenly life which does not fade nor falter; It is the very life of Christ in contradistinction to the perishable life that humanity has in Adam.
Well this is the Bread of Life discourse, the longest single quote of Jesus speaking in the Bible. Doubt we agree on any meaning here. While we agree heavenly life does not fade or falter as humanity has in Adam, we definitely disagree again with your making "everlasting" as part of generic "Heavenly" label and it being used as a noun here by John. The context is a contrast between working for what sustains this life (meat) and laboring for that which can sustain us for everlasting life. Yes it is the very Body of Christ in contrast with say roast lamb which will rot. And yes Heavenly life is by definition not perishable, it is everlasting. Saying everlasting (aionios) is code here for "Heavenly" is again unwarranted. Jesus is speaking of eternal fates and the next life so of course "everlasting life" refers to that which can be lived in Heaven. There is no mystery here needing to be resolved by saying the writer meant Heavenly life. Have you read any of these verses in context?

Originally Posted by waquinasI do not need to assume, this has been the accepted view of those verses for thousands of years.
Accepted by who? The majority? You proposed I made an assumption, was merely pointing out that it is an error for you to assume I had made an assumption. While some of us are open to and do benefit from writings from and those against dissenters in the history of Christianity, it is a gross error to think it was a matter of majority rule. Am saying people have been studying and teaching on these verses for thousands of years, and while opinions have varied on many things; these particular verses and Mr Cribbs explanation of it are not something I believe you will find except in the last few hundred years. So if you are asking me what is more likely or which is the safer bet; that all these prior scholars and teachers got this all wrong and now only a tiny group of people have discovered the true meaning ot Mt5:46; then yes I think we can say this is clearly a case where the majority opinion trumps.I can read and even not knowing the thousands of year old teachings on these verses, there is nothing in Matthew 5 that would even remotely suggest to me that the lesson being taught or the idea being presented there is that God is the source of Justice. While it is true God is certainly that source, there is no reason given by Cripps or yourself as to why we should believe that is the point of using the same adjective to describe the two choices of the Judge in this text. Even the causal reader can see the King and Judge in the story is obviously God, there is no reason to think that is ambiguous and that the writer would think we need help seeing that it is God's Justice being administered by the King. That it is God is clear from the context of the story. If it were not clear, then perhaps Cripps and yourself would have a point and perhaps a leg to stand on.Saying that the adjective should or even could be understood as part of a proper label (noun) ("God's punishment" or "God's reward") rather than an expression of something that never ends in time is a good example of taking a belief system and forcing a verse to read how one wishes.
 

goob

New Member
Jul 20, 2008
10
0
0
53
Yep. Not all definitions fit every Scripture. Take the definitions for the word "judge" for example. Shapat, Mishpat, etc. Only one has to do with giving of rewards. Would anything else possibly fit what kind of judging we will do with the angels? That wouldn't make sense... all the bad angels have already been thrown out. Thus our judging the angels will be regarding giving rewards.
 

JosephDurham1984

New Member
Jul 22, 2008
3
0
0
39
Scripture states that hell is aplace of torment, where the worm dieth not. There is no reason we should imagine that it is not eternal.God bless, Joseph, Evangelist
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(JosephDurham1984;55571)
Scripture states that hell is aplace of torment, where the worm dieth not. There is no reason we should imagine that it is not eternal.God bless, Joseph, Evangelist
Well that contradicts a scripture where it says that there is a second death if Hell is forever.
 

waquinas

New Member
Apr 24, 2008
294
0
0
71
(thesuperjag;55573)
Well that contradicts a scripture where it says that there is a second death if Hell is forever.
well that would be true if only we all believed a second death can ONLY mean a person ceased to exist. Since we do not all believe this, there is no contradiction.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(waquinas;55580)
(thesuperjag;55573)
Well that contradicts a scripture where it says that there is a second death if Hell is forever.
well that would be true if only we all believed a second death can ONLY mean a person ceased to exist. Since we do not all believe this, there is no contradiction.Reply With QuoteWell, you're right. God's Words has no contradiction in it. Another fact to point out is, God does NOT give everyone the same amount of wisdom. So the fact is I'll disagree with men's words. I'll stick with Christ's Words and His Words before He was born.
 

waquinas

New Member
Apr 24, 2008
294
0
0
71
Well I suppose some do find comfort in saying I know I am right because I am right. The problem with just saying "it is God's Word" is that almost any claim can be made then add "it is God's Word". It makes the phrase meaningless. On this site it appears to be code for this is the ruling opinion, all others are stupid (a less polite way of saying "you lack God's Wisdom" or "perhaps God will grant you wisdom" or "one day maybe God will grant you wisdom.) To me there is not much point in making such a claim when you know others do not agree. In fact it becomes a sanctimonious slap in the face insult to other well meaning Christians who just happen to disagee that God's Word says that. I should think it would be enough to just say, "I do not agree God's Word says that" or " I disagree and leave it at that. We learn primarily from other people, not picking up this little book and each reaching our own conclusions independently. Everything we believe is in some sense taught by men, teachings of men. As smart and learned we might like to think of our selves, each of our particular and various understandings of God's Word have origins, orginated in either a single person or very small group of men (or more recently also women) and were further developed by groups of people and so on. So on an alledgedly non-denominational site preportedly welcoming all Christians, it is difficult to understand a prevailing mentallity that only the "sanctioned" understanding of God's Word may be defended and all other attempts to defend alternative views labeled either "denominational" or "teachings of men" or even "evil" or often basically well, stupid. Might as well promulagate a list of accepted beliefs and tell everyone do not bother to attack these and do not attempt to defend a belief that is counter to them. Of course then one would look more like a denomination (of men - sorry had to say it) site rather than just acting like one. Sorry, Jag just felt like ranting but it is annoying to constantly be told we are stupid or following men. Of course we follow men, that is what ALL people do.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(waquinas;55588)
Well I suppose some do find comfort in saying I know I am right because I am right. The problem with just saying "it is God's Word" is that almost any claim can be made then add "it is God's Word". It makes the phrase meaningless. On this site it appears to be code for this is the ruling opinion, all others are stupid (a less polite way of saying "you lack God's Wisdom" or "perhaps God will grant you wisdom" or "one day maybe God will grant you wisdom.) To me there is not much point in making such a claim when you know others do not agree. In fact it becomes a sanctimonious slap in the face insult to other well meaning Christians who just happen to disagee that God's Word says that. I should think it would be enough to just say, "I do not agree God's Word says that" or " I disagree and leave it at that. We learn primarily from other people, not picking up this little book and each reaching our own conclusions independently. Everything we believe is in some sense taught by men, teachings of men. As smart and learned we might like to think of our selves, each of our particular and various understandings of God's Word have origins, orginated in either a single person or very small group of men (or more recently also women) and were further developed by groups of people and so on. So on an alledgedly non-denominational site preportedly welcoming all Christians, it is difficult to understand a prevailing mentallity that only the "sanctioned" understanding of God's Word may be defended and all other attempts to defend alternative views labeled either "denominational" or "teachings of men" or even "evil" or often basically well, stupid. Might as well promulagate a list of accepted beliefs and tell everyone do not bother to attack these and do not attempt to defend a belief that is counter to them. Of course then one would look more like a denomination (of men - sorry had to say it) site rather than just acting like one. Sorry, Jag just felt like ranting but it is annoying to constantly be told we are stupid or following men. Of course we follow men, that is what ALL people do.
So you are saying that telling and preaching Truth is following men as well? I am not interested in following men. No need to say/be sorry to me. All I will say is God works in mysterious ways...
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
Here is a question.What does burning "fire" that cannot be quenched feel like, to a spiritual being, having passed from this fleshly life into the next? Who are we to say that the existance, whatever it is like, and whatever the fire Jesus speaks of feels like, is not eternal, when Jesus clearly says that it is eternal?Jesus went to hell (Acts 2:31) Peter tells us the angels went to hell and are reserved there in "chains" until judgment. (2 Peter 2:4)When the wicked die, they go to hell immediately. Hell (this is Hades, where the wicked go when they die) is not a place of burning, that I can see. The place of burning is Gehenna, which becomes the place where hell and death have been cast after God's final judgement. I believe this the place, Gehenna, is where Hades exists (is cast into) once it has been cast *into lake of fire*, after the judgment (Revelation 20:14). So, after the judgment, hell, a place of holding for the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). It is THEN that the fire of hell begins. I believe that the only time "hell fire" is referred to, it is referring to the time when hell has been cast into the lake of fire (this is after the final judgement). Until the judgement, however... I do not believe there is any fire in hell. That does not come until hell and death are cast into the lake of fire.Take the story of Lazarus in Luke 16:23 for example. The "hell" that the man who asks if Lazarus could dip his finger into water for him, is GEHENNA. This is after the judgment, no? So, the man was in the place, existing... aware... alert, and able to make this request. He is in Gehenna. Right?How could a man, burning in agony (there is fire there)... be aware, alert, and able to communicate his words such that he could ask for a little water (not that he would receive any)? The man is obviously aware... but the question now is, "What effect does 'fire' have on one who is in the fire of hell, such that a man can form thought as such, and even BE THIRSTY?" If I was burning in agony, thirst would be the farthest thing from my mind.I believe the wicked, unsaved, will be sent to hell immediately when they die and await the judgment. The righteous, saved, go to "Abrahams bosom" and await judgment. Both saved and unsaved will be held in thier respective chambers until the final judgment. In the judgement, death and hell is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14), and the saints go on into glory prepared for them in heaven.So, simply put... when we die... we go to a holding place. Wicked and saved are seperated, until the judgment... when we are again brought together for the final judgment... and we are seperated again. I believe both are eternal, alert, and aware of their surroundings. However, I also do not believe "fire" will have the same effects on a spiritual body, as it does on the physical. Again, the man begging for water from lazarus was in the hell fire (Gehenna), but was able to beg for water.So, I'm willing to talk about this issue and see what we all understand. I just want to know what we do know, for sure, from God's Word on the issue. I can be swayed either way by whatever he says, rather than what may or may not be popular to believe. If what is popular is true... so be it... if what is not popular is true... so be it. That's the way I look at it, and I can be swayed whatever way God's Word will allow I think.
 

jtartar

New Member
Mar 14, 2008
133
0
0
85
(treeoflife;55600)
Here is a question.What does burning "fire" that cannot be quenched feel like, to a spiritual being, having passed from this fleshly life into the next? Who are we to say that the existance, whatever it is like, and whatever the fire Jesus speaks of feels like, is not eternal, when Jesus clearly says that it is eternal?Jesus went to hell (Acts 2:31) Peter tells us the angels went to hell and are reserved there in "chains" until judgment. (2 Peter 2:4)When the wicked die, they go to hell immediately. Hell (this is Hades, where the wicked go when they die) is not a place of burning, that I can see. The place of burning is Gehenna, which becomes the place where hell and death have been cast after God's final judgement. I believe this the place, Gehenna, is where Hades exists (is cast into) once it has been cast *into lake of fire*, after the judgment (Revelation 20:14). So, after the judgment, hell, a place of holding for the wicked will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14). It is THEN that the fire of hell begins. I believe that the only time "hell fire" is referred to, it is referring to the time when hell has been cast into the lake of fire (this is after the final judgement). Until the judgement, however... I do not believe there is any fire in hell. That does not come until hell and death are cast into the lake of fire.Take the story of Lazarus in Luke 16:23 for example. The "hell" that the man who asks if Lazarus could dip his finger into water for him, is GEHENNA. This is after the judgment, no? So, the man was in the place, existing... aware... alert, and able to make this request. He is in Gehenna. Right?How could a man, burning in agony (there is fire there)... be aware, alert, and able to communicate his words such that he could ask for a little water (not that he would receive any)? The man is obviously aware... but the question now is, "What effect does 'fire' have on one who is in the fire of hell, such that a man can form thought as such, and even BE THIRSTY?" If I was burning in agony, thirst would be the farthest thing from my mind.I believe the wicked, unsaved, will be sent to hell immediately when they die and await the judgment. The righteous, saved, go to "Abrahams bosom" and await judgment. Both saved and unsaved will be held in thier respective chambers until the final judgment. In the judgement, death and hell is cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14), and the saints go on into glory prepared for them in heaven.So, simply put... when we die... we go to a holding place. Wicked and saved are seperated, until the judgment... when we are again brought together for the final judgment... and we are seperated again. I believe both are eternal, alert, and aware of their surroundings. However, I also do not believe "fire" will have the same effects on a spiritual body, as it does on the physical. Again, the man begging for water from lazarus was in the hell fire (Gehenna), but was able to beg for water.So, I'm willing to talk about this issue and see what we all understand. I just want to know what we do know, for sure, from God's Word on the issue. I can be swayed either way by whatever he says, rather than what may or may not be popular to believe. If what is popular is true... so be it... if what is not popular is true... so be it. That'As the way I look at it, and I can be swayed whatever way God's Word will allow I think.
treeoflife, There are several subjects mentioned in the Greek Scriptures that are not clear unless we understand what the Hebrew Scriptures say about the subject. One of these in what revelation says about being TORMENTED forever, Rev 14:10,11, 20:10. A few years ago our grandmother used to say " Wy must you torment me so"? Did she mean that you were actually physically torturing her?? The Greek word translated TORMENT is Basanizo. This word has it's roots in two main ideas, One a TOUCHSTONE, and Two, being locked away. At Matt 18:34 KJV, jailers were called tormentors. To get a true meaning we must go to the Hebrew Scriptures. Consider Ecc 3:18-20. Here we are told that men are just like animals, as far as death is concerned. WE all go to the same place, we ll have but ONE spirit. Then go to Ecc 9"5,6,10. Here we are told that the dead have no feelings, know nothing, and can do nothing. Ps 146:3,4 also tells us that at death a man's thoughts perish. These scriptures prove that no one can be tormented forever, because they are going to be dead, they cannot know they are being tormented. So exactly what do these scriptures about torment mean?? Look up other scriptures about this same subject for clarity, Consider Matt 25:41, which tells about the goats going into the everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels. Then notice what verse 46 says: These will depart into everlasting cutting off. They will be cut off from God for all eternity. Rev 20:14,15 tells us that all not in the book of life will be thrown into the Lake of Fire, The Second Death!!! There is no place in the Holy Scriptures that say that God will torment anyone forever, for the things he did for a few short years on earth, Remember, all God's ways are JUSTICE. It would not be just to punish someone forever for being a sinner for a few short years., Deut 32:4. Several places in the Scriptures, sinners who do not repent are spoken of as being annihilated, Ps 92:7, 37:38, they also are spoken of as ceasing to exist, Job 14:2. They are as in a deep sleep, Job 14:12, John 11:11-14.
 

waquinas

New Member
Apr 24, 2008
294
0
0
71
(thesuperjag;55589)
So you are saying that telling and preaching Truth is following men as well? I am not interested in following men. No need to say/be sorry to me. All I will say is God works in mysterious ways...
No not all, think you did not get my point. Am saying if I tell people that I am telling and preaching Truth when the other person is a believer that I happen to know disagrees it is a meaningless argument for me to make, or rather non-argument. It is the equivalent of saying I am right because I am right. IOW, both sides can claim I know am right because it is what God's Word says, or is the Truth. So it is pointless to make that statement when the two sides conflict. Obviously God's Word cannot support both positions and if either represents the Truth, the then the other does not.The fact we each believe we are speaking the Truth means that one of us is wrong when we disagree. So to be saying things like "I am right because it is God's Word" or that others "lack wisdom from God to see their error", those are nothing more than insults thinly veiled to sound sanctimonious/righteous. I find it offensive whether it is directed at me or even toward someone else (even when I do not agree with their position either). Ideally we should be free to state a position and that we believe it is supported, defended by God's Word, presenting the case. It should stop there. Others should be free to present their own understanding of the same verses and question the opposing view. On this site however, we often see that there are unofficial (though unpublished) positions on some issues (this thread being one of those) and one is not allowed to present an alternative view with any veracity without either being labeled denominational, follower of men, stupid (lacking wisdom) or even promoting evil.Further my point was that even these unofficial positions are not something where people magically opened their Bible one day and said today I now know that no one burns forever in hell, for instance. Not at all. In reality, such positions can be traced usually to single individuals or maybe occassionally groups of people. As such, while we can vehemently believe with all our hearts that this is what God's Word says on this subject, it does not mean we arrived at that position free from "teachings of men". Someone had this idea before and passed it on. Whether one wishes to admit it or not, we all either heard or read about our particular take on these issues before we decided for ourselves or in some cases perhaps we just agreed without really thinking about it to much. So we all go through that process to arrive at this is what we believe. We are regurgitating what other men have taught on the same issue.So at best, unless one is truly presenting a unique position (which is very rare and so far I have seen nothing new presented here), it makes no sense to be saying to anyone that disagrees with the "unoffical" position that their view is "just following teachings of men". That was my point. We should be able to present an argument without at the same time belittling, berating or demeaning the opposing view. It does not mean we do not stand up for the Truth. It means as Christians we should be able to do so while still respecting the other person.
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
I understand what you are saying. "It's God's Word" really loses it's meaning, because anyone and everyone can and often does claim that... when often is the case, that there is someone on the other end of the debate saying the exact same thing. It can be a delima...Nevertheless, does that mean should we stop saying it is God's Word when we know in our hearts it is Gods Word? Perhaps we should simply refrain from saying "It is God's Word," since that... in and of itself... truly is useless. Bottom line... it either is God's Word, or it isn't. Saying that it is, is often pointless.I admit, I am guilty of saying, "It is God's Word" or "It is the truth" when speaking w/ the world or an unbeliever, from time to time. However, it is a moot point really, to say "It's God's Word". I mean, it either is God's Word it isn't. Saying so doesn't matter, and I agree, it is something we should probably RARELY say... if at all... or never.What we should do is just simply teach God's Word, simply... pray to God that it is His Word (as we believe it is)... and pray that He would correct us in time if it is in fact not His Word! Otherwise, we allow ourselves to be self-decieved, by making a claim that our word is His Word, when really it isn't His Word at all. I think it is best to teach the Word of God, simply, and keep it quite in our hearts (as we have faith in God to claim His own Word wherever His Word is found), letting the cards fall where they may. Let God's Word decide what His Word is or is not, and have faith that God will make the difference.God's Word does not return void, and it should be enough for us to know in our own hearts what it is. Saying that it is God's Word, or it is the "Truth" really means nothing.Jag, you are not the only one to do this (I am guilty, and though I can't say this with absolute certainty, I think waquinas has probably been guilty of the same at some point). I think it needs to change. We should stop saying, "It's God's Word", but I dunno. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this. However, to talk of this more would be to digress... because this is not the topic of this thread.
smile.gif
 

waquinas

New Member
Apr 24, 2008
294
0
0
71
Thanks treeoflifeWell, I do not think a ban on saying "it is God's Word" is necessary. It is just that as a rebuttal or point of argument it is meaningless and I think too often meant as a put down. As in - well my view "it is God's Word" therefore you are not following God's Word - neener neener neener.I never object to some one using scripture to explain their position, but when I respond that my understanding of same scripture is different - then the "well, it is God's Word and you don't have to believe it but maybe God will grant you the wisdom to see it one day" is not an rebuttal of my view but it is an unnecessary personal attack on me, not my view. It is ok to just say that one disagrees with my view, as it should be ok for me to say the same. Same with the "teachings of men" thing, that is a personal attack, not an argument or debate on a view. There are no revolutionary theologians on this site, self included. Every one of us heard or read these ideas from someone else. Did we form our own opinions or variations, perhaps in some cases. But the foundations and various views all orginate somewhere else, not with us.Now if the adminstrators of this site were to publish an official list of positions that are not to be debated; as in on this site - this is God's Word on this matter - then I do not have a leg to stand on here. As it is, there does seem to be some unpublished official positions (and again this thread has one) against which we are not really allowed to say or debate whether that is "God's Word" or rather the correct understanding of it. Many sites have such rules, this site just seems to have them unofficially. I do think if alternative views against these unofficial positions are presented it is still a bit rude to belittle someone while saying that is not the accept understanding of God's Word here. It can be done politely.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(treeoflife;55640)
I understand what you are saying. "It's God's Word" really loses it's meaning, because anyone and everyone can and often does claim that... when often is the case, that there is someone on the other end of the debate saying the exact same thing. It can be a delima...Nevertheless, does that mean should we stop saying it is God's Word when we know in our hearts it is Gods Word? Perhaps we should simply refrain from saying "It is God's Word," since that... in and of itself... truly is useless. Bottom line... it either is God's Word, or it isn't. Saying that it is, is often pointless.I admit, I am guilty of saying, "It is God's Word" or "It is the truth" when speaking w/ the world or an unbeliever, from time to time. However, it is a moot point really, to say "It's God's Word". I mean, it either is God's Word it isn't. Saying so doesn't matter, and I agree, it is something we should probably RARELY say... if at all... or never.What we should do is just simply teach God's Word, simply... pray to God that it is His Word (as we believe it is)... and pray that He would correct us in time if it is in fact not His Word! Otherwise, we allow ourselves to be self-decieved, by making a claim that our word is His Word, when really it isn't His Word at all. I think it is best to teach the Word of God, simply, and keep it quite in our hearts (as we have faith in God to claim His own Word wherever His Word is found), letting the cards fall where they may. Let God's Word decide what His Word is or is not, and have faith that God will make the difference.God's Word does not return void, and it should be enough for us to know in our own hearts what it is. Saying that it is God's Word, or it is the "Truth" really means nothing.Jag, you are not the only one to do this (I am guilty, and though I can't say this with absolute certainty, I think waquinas has probably been guilty of the same at some point). I think it needs to change. We should stop saying, "It's God's Word", but I dunno. I would like to hear other people's thoughts on this. However, to talk of this more would be to digress... because this is not the topic of this thread.
smile.gif

The words in dark red, I'm not going to say much at all. I am not guilty of preaching / saying the Truth of where it needs to be told. I can't help but to say the Truth. I can only say what I do know from His Words. But I can't say what I don't know from His Words. Do I know everything? No! Do I pretend to know all the answers? No! Does God give everybody the same amount of wisdom? No! Do I recognize false doctrines when I see one? Yes!
 

waquinas

New Member
Apr 24, 2008
294
0
0
71
We are men or a part of mankind. We have different teachings on this thing and in this case both sides would say it is in God's Word that it is so. So now then which teaching of men on this subject is the casual observer to follow? This was my point. Both sides can make the exact same claim - that the other is a teaching of man. So the only difference on this site is one side is often not allowed to argue the case.
 

Veronica Moser

New Member
Feb 22, 2008
54
1
0
32
"waquinas said:
The reference in (2 Cor 5.1) is translated "eternal" in nearly every translation (Young excepted)"]Eternal relates to time, sure, but it is no less true that eternity transcends time.
Whether eternal expresses something which "transcends" time as we know it, am not sure we can say with any certainty. Clearly God transcends, He is outside of time. Am not as certain about anything else God has made stands "outside" time with Him.
Eternity is not something made by God. All eternality is of God, for God alone is truly eternal in the primary sense of having no beginning and no end.
We could go around and around on this but even saying "time will be no more" does not even necessarily mean outside of time.
Can you expound on your meaning here?
So suggesting that because God both transcends time and is eternal, that therefore the word "eternal" means "outside of time" is not accurate.
You're logic sounds interesting, but it is not at all clear. Please spell out your reasoning in syllogistic form if you can.
The equal phrase "never ending" expresses the same idea, time passing without end - not something outside of time.
Time is succession, but eternity is neither past nor future. Interestingly enough, Plato, who coined the Greek word aionios, said precisely this.
Believe my statement in that regards stands, especially in that the word even in use by Paul is a adjective, it is not being used as a proper noun label to mean heavenly body.
I'm not suggesting that aionios is used as anything other than an adjective, if that is what you mean.
Just as the writer in Matthew 5 is using an adjective. The fact that Paul here refers to a our future bodies in comparison to our present one does not alter the meaning or the usage of the word.
I agree.
Quote:"For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." - 2 Corinthians 5:1Here aionios is used of the indissoluble things of Heaven in contrast to the things of the mundane world of corruption. An unproven assertion. Noticed the need to broaden the scope of the verse to attempt to make a point. (things of Heaven rather than just our bodies which is the topic of almost the entire chapter). Clearly the writer is refering to two different bodies and contrasting them, one being in heaven. I fail to see why we must see the use of the adjective in this verse as the writer labeling a larger category of all "indissoluble things of heaven". This is adding meaning to that Chapter that is not present in order to present an understanding of a word to justify a belief system already held.
Clearly this verse is using the term aionios to refer to the fact that our Heavenly bodies will be incorruptible. You have not presented an argument against this plain fact, and I doubt that you can.
Quote:"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal." -2 Corinthians 4:18In this verse, aionios describes the eternal truths which human eyes and ears have not seen nor heard, for these truths belong to the unseen realm of God as opposed to the visible world of change.. While this all sounds good and well, it neither addresses what the writer is speaking of or the proper understanding of aionios. He is not talking about "truths" here. This is a lead in to the next Chapter (see notes above). Here in chapter 4 the writer speaks of many disagreeable things in this life (things which are seen) and is stating that our hope, the reason we do not despair is because our hope, what we are to "look to" is in things not seen. Yes Paul speaks of temporal and eternal, contrasting the two, but I must disagree that he is absolutely NOT contrasting sets of truths as you suggest. Again I do not see how we can take verses out of context, use them however we wish to justify a position and suggest that is the meaning being conveyed by a particular word. Context matters.
You say that the eternal unseen things referenced in this verses are not truths, but you are just quibbling over semantics, it seems. Indeed, we are to focus on realities (i.e. truths) that are immutable and not subject to the transience that characterizes the present world.
Quote:"Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed." - John 6:27Aionios here refers to that Heavenly life which does not fade nor falter; It is the very life of Christ in contradistinction to the perishable life that humanity has in Adam. Well this is the Bread of Life discourse, the longest single quote of Jesus speaking in the Bible. Doubt we agree on any meaning here.
Why would you doubt that we would agree on any meaning here?
While we agree heavenly life does not fade or falter as humanity has in Adam, we definitely disagree again with your making "everlasting" as part of generic "Heavenly" label and it being used as a noun here by John.
What are you talking about? I never said that aionios functions as a noun. Please clear this up in your own mind so that we can make this exchange productive.
Saying everlasting (aionios) is code here for "Heavenly" is again unwarranted. Jesus is speaking of eternal fates and the next life so of course "everlasting life" refers to that which can be lived in Heaven. There is no mystery here needing to be resolved by saying the writer meant Heavenly life. Have you read any of these verses in context?
I've read them all in context and I fail to see what your beef is. You might be onto something, and I do take well to criticism. Can you try to clarify your argument, please?
Am saying people have been studying and teaching on these verses for thousands of years, and while opinions have varied on many things; these particular verses and Mr Cribbs explanation of it are not something I believe you will find except in the last few hundred years.
Seems to me that Cripps was arguing in the same spirit that Gregory of Nyssa reasoned.
I can read and even not knowing the thousands of year old teachings on these verses, there is nothing in Matthew 5 that would even remotely suggest to me that the lesson being taught or the idea being presented there is that God is the source of Justice. While it is true God is certainly that source, there is no reason given by Cripps or yourself as to why we should believe that is the point of using the same adjective to describe the two choices of the Judge in this text. Even the causal reader can see the King and Judge in the story is obviously God, there is no reason to think that is ambiguous and that the writer would think we need help seeing that it is God's Justice being administered by the King. That it is God is clear from the context of the story. If it were not clear, then perhaps Cripps and yourself would have a point and perhaps a leg to stand on.
I do beg your pardon, but casn you remind me which verse(s) in Matthew 5 we were discussing? Thanks.
Saying that the adjective should or even could be understood as part of a proper label (noun) ("God's punishment" or "God's reward") rather than an expression of something that never ends in time is a good example of taking a belief system and forcing a verse to read how one wishes.
More talk of nouns! :naughty: What gives?
 

waquinas

New Member
Apr 24, 2008
294
0
0
71
Veronica Moser]Eternal relates to time said:
If by that you mean the term can apply to something which has no beginning or end, then we agree. We could perhaps say in that aspect something which is eternal in that sense transcends or is outside of time. I think at the utmost sense of that we have God , who is in that sense Eternal. I do not agree that we are now or can ever become in that same sense Eternal. We agree it is one use of the word.However that is not the only usage of the word eternal. Sometimes it is used to describe things which have beginnings but no end. Cripps would like us to believe aionios always refers to this meaning. That is where we disagree.
Eternity is not something made by God. All eternality is of God, for God alone is truly eternal in the primary sense of having no beginning and no end.
Actually I think properly God is Eternity. God is said to make our souls eternal, but we do not agree that means we each have always existed or that we can become eternal the way He is Eternal. I agree it is God that gives us eternal life, including immortal souls which never perish.
Can you expound on your meaning here?
well, without a lot of detail I will try; time is a way of measuring things which change. God never changes, so in that aspect He is outside of time. We experience time as change unfolds. God sees all eternity instantly without waiting for the next "change", He sees it all beginning to now, to forever while we perceive it only as things change. Saying "Time will be no more" as it applies to us, I cannot see that meaning we become like God in that respect. It could be nothing more than saying our view of change (time) is altered, not that things are no longer changing. Perhaps it simply means we will be able to see or know how all the events came to be leading up to our individual present (wherever we are). Right now we can only read or speculate about things past that occur outside of our experience; why my great great-great grandfather moved from Ireland to the Carolinas for instant. Why? Because right now time is a barrier I cannot bridge or see through in order for me to ABSOLUTELY know everything leading up to that decision in time by my long dead relative. If that is not true in Heaven and I make it there, if I then can know or see all those events, then in that sense it is true that time is no longer a barrier for me (at least backwards). So in that sense time is no more for me.
You're logic sounds interesting, but it is not at all clear. Please spell out your reasoning in syllogistic form if you can.
Will give it a try.Time is a measure of change.An eternal flame can mean one never intended to be extinguished once lit.After the flame is lit, other things continue to change around it (time passes). If the flame had awareness, that change would only be observable as it occurred (as time/change is perceived) and the flame would have no awareness before it became to be (lit) or outside of the extent of it's awareness (like maybe line of sight for example for simplicity).The flame is eternal (never goes out) but does not exist outside of time (things change around it and could be perceived to change measurement of time).Eternal does not have to mean outside of time.The same could be said of our souls in the view of them being created at conception as immortal. The soul will never cease to exist, but still does not exist outside of time. I do happen to think our awareness will be expanded in Heaven to include the past, but I do not think our view will be like God's in regards to the future (or the past). It could be in that sense – expansion of our awareness that time is no more for us as well as the fact that we ourselves are no longer subject to the present negative aspects of time – corruption/decay of our bodies.
Time is succession, but eternity is neither past nor future. Interestingly enough, Plato, who coined the Greek word aionios, said precisely this.
As it applies to God, yes being eternal is neither past or future and we agree that is one sense of the word. However I think God is Eternal in a sense nothing else can be, only God is Eternal in that sense. We or the flame mentioned above can be eternal in the sense we do not cease to be. As said before "time will be no more" can simply mean a barrier I have now (time) would no longer be an obstacle for me that it is now (in regard to the past). I do not agree that it means there is for the resurrected body in Heaven no sense of a future or that we (like God) will know that future. If we accept we become perfect in resurrection to Heaven, then we could say in that sense we cease to change or be affected by time in a negative sense, but I do think eternal or "time will be no more" requires no change at all or the loss of our ability to experience change as in observe. If for no other reason than beings with our intellect continuously learn and experience things (changes). If there is no change(for which time is a measure) in Heaven in this absolute sense, then we cease to learn or experience anything. And that would not agree with my view of Heaven. To me it would be the ultimate way of experiencing whatever we desire and those experiences must be one aspect of time/chamge.Some have indeed speculated that in the end, “time will be no more” as expressing the idea that there will only be the present, the now. No future or past. Am not sure on what basis we could conclude that or absolutely know it. Further there are memories of this life that would bring us joy and perhaps if able experience in the ancient past we may wish to explore (if that were possible). I do not think these things, which are part of our nature will cease to be when we are resurrected. Certainly our bodies change just as Jesus body was observed to be different, but we will still be human and those things are part of a human nature.
I'm not suggesting that aionios is used as anything other than an adjective, if that is what you mean.
Do not believe that is what was said. We were speaking of a particular verse. In order for Cripps understanding to work, the word aionios in those verses becomes the writer using aionios as part of a NOUN (proper name/label) for all things heavenly. In agreeing with that view, one would have to accept that the writer is not using the word as an adjective. That entire post from Cripps is him trying to convince us this is so.
Clearly this verse is using the term aionios to refer to the fact that our Heavenly bodies will be incorruptible. You have not presented an argument against this plain fact, and I doubt that you can.
But that is my point, Paul is talking about just and ONLY our bodies in Heaven. He is contrasting our earthly bodies with our heavenly ones. Go back and read what Cripps said about that verse, Cripps says Paul is not talking about our bodies at all in the second instance, but about ALL "Things" in Heaven. The verse is taken out of context in order for Cripps to make his point. I agree with you (and not Cripps) that Paul is speaking of our heavenly bodies.
You say that the eternal unseen things referenced in this verses are not truths, but you are just quibbling over semantics, it seems. Indeed, we are to focus on realities (i.e. truths) that are immutable and not subject to the transience that characterizes the present world.
Not semantics. We just agreed that Paul is specifically speaking of our bodies and comparing our experience here with what Heaven will be like. It is about our hope Paul says.It is again Cripps who takes a single verse (from end of 2 Cor 4) and expands the meaning to "truths" in order to help make his point. It sounds good, but once again Cripps is taking a verse out of context, expanding the original meaning to specifically make it appear that Paul is agreeing with Cripps on this topic. Paul was not writing about "truths" in general sense, but about hope of a much better experience (than this life) as our hope made possible by Christ. That our hope is in things "unseen" and not our present troubles is a truth, but it does not follow as Cripps implies that Paul is speaking of heavenly "eternal truths". Paul is speaking of things unseen in Heaven being better than here and now. Whereas Cripps is saying Paul speaks of eternal truths as opposed to worldly or "changing" truths. Truths are not the topic of that chapter. What Cripps is saying about Paul's writing is simply not true and from what you wrote above I thought you apparently agreed with him. Is this about semantics then or taking a verse out of context and making it say or appear to agree with what one wants others to believe.
Why would you doubt that we would agree on any meaning here?
Perhaps wrong but I doubted that you believe in the Bread of Life. For many Christians this is all symbolic, for others He is talking about eating His Body and drinking His Blood. This is another topic.
What are you talking about? I never said that aionios functions as a noun. Please clear this up in your own mind so that we can make this exchange productive.
Sorry, will try to explain better.Cripps takes usage of aionios in several verse and attempts to make the point that every time it is used, the writer is using it as a label(name) for a proper noun meaning Heavenly or something from God for example rather than it being simply an adjective meaning eternal (never ending). IOW eternal life becomes a reference to all "Heavenly Life" or Life from God, things eternal becomes a reference a label for all "Heaven Things", eternal itself becomes "Heavenly Truths"...etc. Please do not misunderstand – all things come FROM GOD and these writers understood that better than us (and Cripps) perhaps. Cripps however would have us believe every time they say aionios that the only understanding of that is the writer labeling something as coming from God. All of this plays to Cripp’s supposition that “eternal fire” (again the word aionios) only means a fire from which God is the source rather than something which lasts forever. So he attempts to show that same idea in all these other verses.So the usage (noun or adjuective) and the context of the writer becomes import if we are to consider whether these verses actually say what Cripps claims they say. My contention is these verses say no such thing and I thought you agreed with Cripps. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
I've read them all in context and I fail to see what your beef is. You might be onto something, and I do take well to criticism. Can you try to clarify your argument, please?
Sure, I will try. Cripps wants us to think that every useage of aionios is a euphemism for "heavenly" or "heaven life" or even more simply that it merely reflecting that something comes from God (as opposed to coming from ??? Cripps never says). His contention then being that if this is true, then “eternal fire” simply means a fire from God or a reference to God Himself rather than a fire that burns eternally.So he then proceeds to take this broader aspect of "eternal" applied to Heaven and claim NT writers support his view of "eternal" rather than being some specific aspect of aionios as clearly intended by the writer when taken in context. So eternal Paul’s "things unseen" as objects of our hope compared to the evils of this world becomes "Heaven truths" when the writer wasn't even talking about truths or comparing one set of truths with another. Here in John 6.27, Cripps has John, who is clearly saying that in this life we are to strive for something which leads to eternal life (and this is the theme of almost the entire chapter), becomes just a comparison between "worldy life" and Christ life. No mention of striving for anything at all.Cripps goes on to say Christ himself is given to us for eternal life to be possible (which is true). John is saying strive for this and you can have eternal life. True that eternal life is in Heaven and Christ makes that possible, but it does not follow John is using aionios to compare Heavenly with worldly life.
Seems to me that Cripps was arguing in the same spirit that Gregory of Nyssa reasoned.
Sorry am missing something here. Did Cripps make reference to Gregory? Or did we cover that in a post somewhere? Can you explain what Gregory reference we are talking about?
I do beg your pardon, but casn you remind me which verse(s) in Matthew 5 we were discussing? Thanks.
Actually I think that was a typo, we did mention chapter 25, last verse where aionios is used in the same reference to punishment in Hell and life in Heaven.Again I wish to be clear, I do not disagree with Cripps that God is the source of everything. It should go without saying that this is so. So God creates both Heaven and Hell, He is the source of each. The debate and my point is that Cripps suggests all these verses referencing eternity (aionios) is simply indicating something which comes from God rather than meaning something which has no end. My first thought is what does Cripps think does not come from God or why would he assume we think Hell, Heaven or life would not be things coming from God?
More talk of nouns! :naughty: What gives?
Hope I explained it better.Cripps says all these verses using “eternal”(aionios) simply reflect the idea that the thing being mentioned (whether fire, or Heaven or life) are things to be understood (by the use of the world aionios) that the writer wants us to know those things comes from God rather than an expression that the thing being referenced never ends. I disagree and I think Cripps grossly distorts the true message of those verses in order to make it appear the NT writer agrees with him.
 

jtartar

New Member
Mar 14, 2008
133
0
0
85
(kriss;50383)
sosthenesThis was after Christ was crusified that he ascended, he was not in his flesh body it had been killed, this was his spirit body that arose not flesh.Do not think that the spirit body is like a ghost it has substance as Christ proved after he was killed he could be seen touched, ect. Well you can read much of my opinions on this here but I do not believe in any pre-trib rapture it is not written in the Word.Its called a theory because thats what it is a theroy of men. And I believe the parable of the fig tree that the End time season started in May 1948 with the restablishment of the State of Israel for the first time in almost 2000 years.but lets not get into these discussions here but feel free to start a thread on any of these subjects.
Kriss, You are entirely correct that Jesus was a spirit when he returned to heaven. The problem is: Your opinion or mine does not prove what we say unless we have scripture to give weight to our word. The Bible actually states that Jesus was put to death in the flesh, and was made alive in the spirit, 1Pet 3:18. Notice also verse 19, which states that Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison. Jesus could not have gone to spirit prison as flesh and blood. Even if he were able he could not see angels. 2Pet 2:4 tells us about this spirit prison. The name is TARTARUS. Some Bibles incorrectly translate this word into HELL. Other scriptures that make the idea of a spirit person are, John 20:19, where Jesus' disciples were in a locked room and Jesus stood in their midst. Other scriptures tell us that the ones who knew Jesus intimately, did not recognize Jesus by sight, John 20:14-17, Luke 24:15,16,20.21. The disciples did not recognize Jesus, then after they did recognize him, he DISAPPEARED.
 

Jordan

Active Member
Apr 6, 2007
4,875
6
38
(jtartar;57519)
(Kriss;50383)
sosthenesThis was after Christ was crusified that he ascended, he was not in his flesh body it had been killed, this was his spirit body that arose not flesh.Do not think that the spirit body is like a ghost it has substance as Christ proved after he was killed he could be seen touched, ect.Well you can read much of my opinions on this here but I do not believe in any pre-trib rapture it is not written in the Word.Its called a theory because thats what it is a theroy of men.And I believe the parable of the fig tree that the End time season started in May 1948 with the restablishment of the State of Israel for the first time in almost 2000 years.but lets not get into these discussions here but feel free to start a thread on any of these subjects.
Kriss,You are entirely correct that Jesus was a spirit when he returned to heaven. The problem is: Your opinion or mine does not prove what we say unless we have scripture to give weight to our word.The Bible actually states that Jesus was put to death in the flesh, and was made alive in the spirit, 1Pet 3:18. Notice also verse 19, which states that Jesus went and preached to the spirits in prison. Jesus could not have gone to spirit prison as flesh and blood. Even if he were able he could not see angels. 2Pet 2:4 tells us about this spirit prison. The name is TARTARUS. Some Bibles incorrectly translate this word into HELL.Other scriptures that make the idea of a spirit person are, John 20:19, where Jesus' disciples were in a locked room and Jesus stood in their midst. Other scriptures tell us that the ones who knew Jesus intimately, did not recognize Jesus by sight, John 20:14-17, Luke 24:15,16,20.21. The disciples did not recognize Jesus, then after they did recognize him, he DISAPPEARED.I think you are repeating things she knew already. In fact, I'm sure that I know that for a fact. When Christ rose from the death, He was not in His flesh body (Ecclesiastes 12:7, Genesis 3:19) but His spiritual body. (I Corinthians 15:44)
smile.gif
 

treeoflife

New Member
Apr 30, 2008
601
0
0
41
Jag,After Jesus was resurrected, He still had the wounds in his flesh. Now, you did say He was in His "spirit body." So, will our spiritual bodies have blemishes and imperfections in them left from wounds made to our physical body? Will we inherit the kingdom maimed, in our spirit bodies, if our physical bodies sustained damage in this life?John 20:25-27Also, where did Jesus' "flesh body" go? The tomb was, and remains, empty.John 20:1-8