- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
08 Apr 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterAnd yes, one would certainly need eternal life to burn forever, so your theology is lacking. "He who has the Son has life, he who does not have the Son does not have life" 1John 5:12
God's wrath is that they will be cast in the Lake of fire, then they die again. God who is holy and good, pure and righteous, is not someone who would torture someone in utter pain and anguish forever. It would contradict his character. It is illogical and is simply traditional teaching that was inspired by Greek Mythology and has corrupted God's word fo ...[text shortened]... g. "He who has the Son has life, he who does not have the Son does not have life" 1John 5:12
I addressed this in a post above. Salvation is often referred to as eternal life; damnation often referred to as a kind of death. If you look at 1Cor.1.18, however, you can see that clearly both groups of people are, strictly speaking, alive (even though the word used to describe the damned is exactly the same word in John 3.16 to refer to those who perish.) I think the English translation of the bible has obfuscated what is strictly metaphoric language.
08 Apr 13
The “Second Death” — Separation or Annihilation?
The dogma of annihilation is not an innocent view with harmless consequences. It is a concept that undermines the full force of that fearful warning of which the Almighty God would have men be aware. There is many a rebel who would gladly indulge himself in a lifetime of sin for an eternal nothingness.
https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/710-the-second-death-separation-or-annihilation
Eternal torment or annihilation?
http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
08 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsFalse teachers of annihilation: Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, Herbert W. Armstrong/plain truth magazine.
The “Second Death” — Separation or Annihilation?
The dogma of annihilation is not an innocent view with harmless consequences. It is a concept that undermines the full force of that fearful warning of which the Almighty God would have men be aware. There is many a rebel who would gladly indulge himself in a lifetime of sin for an eternal nothingness.
h ...[text shortened]... ihilation
Eternal torment or annihilation?
http://www.bible.ca/su-annihilation-refuted.htm
I am none of these. I am just a Christian who studies the bible. So you will have to find another label. Nice flames at that web site though. 🙄
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Apr 13
8 edits
This is a hyperbole, an overstatement. The wording is similar to Revelation 20:10, see the commentary on that verse. “day and night.” The meaning of this phrase can be seen by noticing how it is used in other verses. Paul preached “night and day” to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:9),
and later prayed for them “night and day” (1 Thess. 3:10).
This criticism misaims from my post towards someone else's rationale perhaps. I never made a special appeal to the phrase "day and night" though I did quote the entire Rev. 20:10.
Let's consider your logic anyway. When the devil is cast into the lake of fire the Antichrist and his false prophet have already BEEN there for 1,000 years of days and nights. This is because Satan is released and soon after thrown into the lake of fire:
"And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison." (20:7)
Since the Antichrist and his false prophet were cast into that place at the beginning of those thousand years immediately after the battle of Armageddon:
"And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet ... these two were cast alive into the lake of fire, which burns with brimestone." (See Rev. 19:20)
For one thousand years of days and nights these two are tormented. And when the thousand years is completed they are STILL THERE. Otherwise 20:10 would not say " ... and THEY will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
The word "THEY" indicates that after 1,000 years in said lake of fire the two of the threesome have not been made to exist no longer. And the fact that being joined by the devil which duped them so that "they will be tormented ..." signifies a future of continued punishment.
Now even if you made some case the "forever and ever" is a limited time you don't make God the kinder because for one thousand YEARS they have already been punished day and night.
So your kinder and gentlier version of the lake of fire still has Antichrist and the false prophet being tormented for days and nights during 1,000 years. And it is evident that some more is assured them after Satan their boss finally joins them:
"And the devil who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimestone where also the beast and the false prophet were; .... and THEY will be tormented day and night forever and ever."
Your kinder and gentlier version of the lake of fire isn't much kinder or gentlier - one thousand years of torment with SOME MORE to go.
First, we see it does not necessarily mean “constantly,” although it could in the context of future torment. Second, it does not mean it goes on forever. Both Paul’s preaching for the Thessalonians, and his prayers to see them, came to an end at some point. Similarly, the person who sows seed
in the ground sleeps and gets up “night and day” while the seed is growing (Mark 4:27).
I have no objection this reasoning about day and night. But again, I did not make special appeal to the phrase "day and night" .
I know that all those whose names are not written in the book of life go to the same place as the beast, the false prophet will be who have been punished for 1,000 years and still have more punishment to go.
Any speculation that the result is different for those whose names are not written in the book of life is just that. I would never encourage anyone to wait and see if somehow the result would be different, though it may be.
I don't think anyone should risk being that curious to find out there would be a different suffering.
Any appeal you make to forever and ever being temporary as to punishment you must conversely reason the same with "forever and ever" being used in any positive sense.
If "they shall be tormented day and night forever and ever" means a temporary period which will be terminated then Christ reign is also temporary -
"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and He will reign forever and ever." (Rev. 11:15)
You cannot make "forever and ever" temporary for the negative of the punishment and at the same time make "forever and ever" eternal for the reigning of our Lord and His Christ.
The New Testament draws a clear contrast and comparison between the temporal things and the eternal things -
"For our momentary lightness of affliction works out for us, more and more surpassingly an eternal weight of glory." (2 Cor. 4:17)
On one side of this comparison you have the "momentary". And on the other side of this comparison you have the "eternal". If the eternal is also momentary then the comparison does not hold. In that case you would have the momentary and the momentary. But Paul is comparing the momentary to the eternal.
Likewise in Second Corinthians 4:18 - "Because we do not regard the things which are seen but the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal." (2 Cor. 4:18)
Here on one side of the contrast is the "temporary" and on the other side is the "eternal". If the eternal is also temporary then the comparison falls through. Then you would have the seen things which are temporary AND the unseen things which are also temporary. But Paul is making a constrast between that which is limited - temporary against that which is without limit - eternal.
So in the New Testament "forever and ever" and "eternal" carry the meaning as without end - not temporary or momentary even if a very long "moment."
Your other examples hammer away on the day and night issue. But this is really not the point I, at least, have made.
Revelation 7:12 says " .... Amen, the blessing and the glory and the wisdom and the thanks and the honor and the power and the strength be to our God forever and ever Amen."
Are you ready to also teach that the blessing, glory, wisdom, thanks, honor, power and strength are only to God temporarily ? But you should teach this is you insist that the phrase "forever and ever" does not mean endless duration.
I believe that the blessing and glory, the wisdom and thanks, the honor, power, strength etc. are God's eternally. And we will so praise Him eternally.
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by checkbaiterI was not trying to label you. Just presenting the information for all to consider.
[b]False teachers of annihilation: Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, Seventh-day Adventists, Herbert W. Armstrong/plain truth magazine.
I am none of these. I am just a Christian who studies the bible. So you will have to find another label. Nice flames at that web site though. 🙄[/b]
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by Conrau KBut you see, there are already self contradictions in your description (bodily resurrection+no bodily pain). So without further explanation, it simply doesn't make sense. To call it 'unambiguously clear' is not, in my opinion, accurate.
But there are also many unambiguously clear details -- bodily resurrection, eternal life, no bodily pain, complete ecstasy.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs it? I do not see why bodily resurrection necessarily presupposes pain.
But you see, there are already self contradictions in your description (bodily resurrection+no bodily pain). So without further explanation, it simply doesn't make sense. To call it 'unambiguously clear' is not, in my opinion, accurate.
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by Conrau KA body without pain, is not a human body, but something else. Now if someone is resurrected as Superman, then it might make some sense, but to call Superman human would be an error.
Is it? I do not see why bodily resurrection necessarily presupposes pain.
My main concern however is the mind. If there are changes to the body, then are there changes to the mind?
Let me pose some questions:
1. we finally discover how to download all the data from your brain into a computer. We do so, then kill your 'old' body. Is it you, in the computer? Do you currently care what will happen to said computer?
2. you die at some point in the future. God resurrects your five year old self. Do you care that God did that?
3. You loose all your memories, and go completely mad, then die. God resurrects your mad self. Do you care about that?
I recall some individuals in star trek having reservations about teleporters.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI can't say I have answers to these questions (I'm not a theist anyway and not personally invested in it). I do think these questions have been addressed (I recall Augustine discussing them in his works) but since there is no dogmatic consensus, there's not really any point.
A body without pain, is not a human body, but something else. Now if someone is resurrected as Superman, then it might make some sense, but to call Superman human would be an error.
My main concern however is the mind. If there are changes to the body, then are there changes to the mind?
Let me pose some questions:
1. we finally discover how to down ...[text shortened]... e about that?
I recall some individuals in star trek having reservations about teleporters.
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, I'd forgotten that you weren't theist. I do think that every theist ought to ask themselves these questions as they are (for most religions) central to their beliefs. It seems odd to me how most theists seem to avoid discussing them.
I can't say I have answers to these questions (I'm not a theist anyway and not personally invested in it).
If we discuss anything scientific, there are plenty of theists quite willing to make claims about the universe well beyond their level of comfort with regards to science. But mention the soul, and nobody wants to even speculate.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadSome of us may find it equally puzzling that you can understand infinite sets and quantum tunnelling etc. but scratch your head at - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ... etc."
Yes, I'd forgotten that you weren't theist. I do think that every theist ought to ask themselves these questions as they are (for most religions) central to their beliefs. It seems odd to me how most theists seem to avoid discussing them.
If we discuss anything scientific, there are plenty of theists quite willing to make claims about the universe well ...[text shortened]... of comfort with regards to science. But mention the soul, and nobody wants to even speculate.
You seem to continue to goad believers by complaining that no one dares to discuss this or that with you, no one dares to explain this or that with you.
You cannot understand John 3:16? I just look carefully at the whole chapter for context and supporting explanation. Indeed the whole Gospel of John should clearly furnish the backround upon which the reasonably sound mind can get an adaquate understanding of 3:16 if not an exhaustive one.
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonshipYet oddly enough you don't understand it either.
Some of us may find it equally puzzling that you can understand infinite sets and quantum tunnelling etc. but scratch your head at - "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ... etc."
You cannot understand John 3:16? I just look carefully at the whole chapter for context and supporting explanation. Indeed the whole Gospel of John should clearly furnish the backround upon which the reasonably sound mind can get an adaquate understanding of [b]3:16 if not an exhaustive one.[/b]
Yet you continue to refuse to actually discuss it. The best you can do is sit there saying "its obvious". Sorry, but your refusal to discuss it puts the lie to that claim. The best you can come up with seems to be an attempt at gaining a preaching opportunity. Sorry, but I don't think you should be pushing a religion that you don't understand.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
09 Apr 13
3 edits
Yet oddly enough you don't understand it either.
I adaquately understand the meaning of the human soul and John 3:16.
I told you that for God to give eternal life in John 3:16 was for God to give Himself to man. That is to join Himself to the one who believes into Christ.
The Apostle John concludes his epistle of First John with these profound words -
"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us an understanding that we might know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:20)
What is eternal life ? Eternal life is the true God and His Son Jesus Christ. And eternal life is a realm a sphere that God must bring the believer into.
" ... and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ"
To give eternal life is to give God in Christ to man.
Now you no doubt are going to say that you do not understand these few words. Maybe you conceal a contempt for the words of the New Testament itself. Maybe your playing on my sympathy that you just cannot understand John 3:16 is your veiled contempt for the words. Perhaps you despise them in your unbelief.
I think you will understand these words eventually. So I am not too concerned for this.
Jesus said also in the same Gospel - "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Him whom You have sent, Jesus Christ." (John 17:3)
In your skeptical arsenal I am sure you have any number of reasons why you should not take these words seriously. But this is what John 3:16 is talking about - the giving of God Himself to man, into man, dispensing God into man. From our side it is the gaining of eternal life.
From God's side it is the gaining of more sons of God.
Now the soul is the mind, emotion, and will of man.
And if we take Christ seriously as I think He deserves to be taken, this soul of man is something which can be separated from the body at physical death. And it can be re-united with the physical body in resurrection.
IF anyone else told us that, we might have ground to ask how does he know for sure. When it comes to matters of death and what lies beyond death, I think it behooves us to take heed of One who speaks with authority on the subject - Jesus.
Jesus rose others from the dead.
Jesus went into death. Jesus came up out of death.
Like I would sit up and listen to Bobby Fischer or Gary Kasparov on the subject of winning in chess play, because such persons speak with authority on the subject, even more I would heed the words of Jesus Christ concerning the soul, the spirit, death, what lies behind death, and resurrection.
I do not understand everything about the human soul.
I think with spiritual growth and maturity deeper understanding comes.
Yet you continue to refuse to actually discuss it. The best you can do is sit there saying "its obvious".
I just discussed it. I could quite a bit more. Probably I could half the day. Maybe all day I could discuss this verse.
And you know what ? You could probably find things to claim you simply do not understand about John 3:16 with about as much zeal.
Right? Sure I'm right. These poor poor Christians. They JUST CANNOT help you to understand. Right?
Christ is valuable to God.
Christ is very valuable to God.
Christ is of the utmost and ultimate value to God.
God so loved this fallen Satanified world that He gave this precious One for the salvation by His absorbing on our behalf the righteous judgment which we deserved.
He so loved the world. What God commands of us now is that we believe in His only begotten Son.
The one who disbelieves will perish.
The one who believes into Christ receives Christ. And in receiving Christ she or he receives God and eternal life.
Now if you still do not understand its okay. I truly think that eventually you will understand.
Maybe I'll say "Twhitehead do you understand now ?" And maybe then you'll say "I got it!"
Sorry, but your refusal to discuss it puts the lie to that claim. The best you can come up with seems to be an attempt at gaining a preaching opportunity. Sorry, but I don't think you should be pushing a religion that you don't understand.
Don't be frustrated that I do not respond to your goading - "Why any Christian worth his salt would argue with ME for six years about John 3:16."
And you push stuff that you do not understand a lot. If we ask you to take a position you cautiously avoid being committed. As long as you can think of some plausible problems with my faith, that is really all you care about.
You don't understand quantum physics that well. But if I say God the Creator caused the beginning of time and the universe you will result to a lot of hand waving "Quantum Physics ! Quantum Physics !"
Your taunting, boasting, proding that no decent Christians will argue with you ad infinitum does not impress this poster.
Do you ever go and pray about what you do not understand in the Gospel of John ? Prayer is not only an excercise of the mind. Prayer is an excercise of the spirit, the innermost kernel of one's spiritual being.
I learned too much by humbling myself to excercise my spirit in prayer to God.
But you probably have reasons why this avenue is unacceptable to you.
Sorry twhitehead. I guess you'll just have to go away and not understand, for now.
09 Apr 13
Originally posted by sonshipYes, and its blatantly obvious that you intended it that way.
Now you no doubt are going to say that you do not understand these few words.
Maybe you conceal a contempt for the words of the New Testament itself. Maybe your playing on my sympathy that you just [b]cannot understand John 3:16 is your veiled contempt for the words. Perhaps you despise them in your unbelief.[/b]
Or maybe you don't understand them either and are just bluffing. Thats my guess.
Yes, I know you are very good at very long posts full of gobbledygook, but thats all it is. Not once in that very long post did you even attempt to answer my questions.