‘Eternal suffering’ is nonsensical

Originally posted by @sonship
Luke 12:4,5

Matt 16: 17
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (the revelation of who Jesus is) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There is no hell, and if there was it was done away with by Jesus. Remember, the final book is also “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”. It’s not called the revelation of hell. Maybe just have a think on that, I say that respectfully.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Matt 16: 17
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock (the revelation of who Jesus is) I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

There is no hell, and if there was it was done away with by Jesus. Remember, the final book is also “The Revelation of Jesus Christ”. It’s not called the revelation of hell. Maybe just have a think on that, I say that respectfully.

And respectfully I reply that for many years I have been aware of not only the last book being "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" but the entire Bible being the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Jesus cannot have taught it due to it being the complete pile of incoherent abhorrent nonsense that it is.

See my post above this one of your's which I'm replying to.

Therefore your interpretation is in error.

I'm just curious. If what Jesus said doesn't fit your way of thinking should you change what Jesus said or change your way of thinking?

Originally posted by @divegeester
I don't have "unbelief" about eternal suffering because it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, comparing my disgust at the notion of torturing billions of people for eternity with the religious indignation of Muslims about the gospel is sheer intellectual dishonesty by you Sir. I object to your teaching on moral grounds, through common sense, common decent ...[text shortened]... Christ and all that is good. The Muslim thing is just cross-religious conflict and you know it.

I think that an eternal soul that is separated from God for eternity will suffer. Do you think a soul cannot be separated from God for eternity, or do you think that a soul that is separated from God for eternity won't suffer? Is there another option?

It you don't believe in a literal fire would you at least be open to a soul being tormented by guilt and regret?

Originally posted by @sonship
And respectfully I reply that for many years I have been aware of not only the last book being [b]"The Revelation of Jesus Christ" but the entire Bible being the revelation of Jesus Christ.[/b]

I think you missed my point that “the gates of hell” shall not prevail against the Revelation of Jesus Christ as Peter had it, and in the same way the gates of hell shall not stand in the book The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which is where he’ll is described and from where most of the doctrine of eternal suffering is generated. The revelation of Jesus Christ shall prevail over this doctrine of death and eternal suffering.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I think you missed my point that “the gates of hell” shall not prevail against the Revelation of Jesus Christ as Peter had it, and in the same way the gates of hell shall not stand in the book The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which is where he’ll is described and from where most of the doctrine of eternal suffering is generated. The revelation of Jesus Christ shall prevail over this doctrine of death and eternal suffering.

What is your interpretation of these particular words spoken by Jesus about the rich man and Lazarus. Luke 16:19-31. Particularly verse 23 and 24: "In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire."

Originally posted by @divegeester
I think you missed my point that “the gates of hell” shall not prevail against the Revelation of Jesus Christ as Peter had it, and in the same way the gates of hell shall not stand in the book The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which is where he’ll is described and from where most of the doctrine of eternal suffering is generated. The revelation of Jesus Christ shall prevail over this doctrine of death and eternal suffering.

An interesting application of Matthew 16.

I think you missed my point that “the gates of hell” shall not prevail against the Revelation of Jesus Christ as Peter had it,

The revelation that Peter received is in two parts:
1.) Christ - the Son of the living God.
2.) The church which Christ will build

Of course the gates of Hell or the gates of death (Hades) will not prevail against either. But specifically the building the church is highlighted.

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church,

and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." (v.18)

Death will try hard. But death, its realm, or anything pertaining to death will not prevail against the church which Christ will build.

Death may prevail against the "church" which we presume to organize and build. It cannot against the church Christ builds.

Originally posted by @divegeester
[b]I think you missed

It is an interesting treatment -

Ie. virtually - "The doctrine of hell fire will not prevail against the revelation of Christ the Son of the living God."

That may very well be true. But that does not mean the teaching of eternal punishment is not true. It means to me that the revelation of Christ as the Son of the living God will be more prevailing.

Now what is not prevailed against there is not only the revelation as the foundation of the church - Christ, the Son of the living God, but the church built from transformed man - a stone Peter.

Christ changed the name of Simon Bar-jona to a stone - Peter. Most in the Bible where God changes someone's name it signifies transformation.

The church which Christ builds will be built only by the transformation and building together of those who have seen the revelation that Christ is the Son of the living God.

Death in all its forms and everything pertaining to death will not be able to conquer this church. Amen. But it will try.

Let me elaborate. I wrote above:

That may very well be true. But that does not mean the teaching of eternal punishment is not true. It means to me that the revelation of Christ as the Son of the living God will be more prevailing.

Christians may preach the gospel with references to hell fire more and more intensely. This may get many people saved. But it is not the only thing needed.

All the stones must be transformed by Christ's indwelling life so that they can be built up together into God's house the church.

The church is built by the transformation of those who have seen the revelation of the Son of God. It stops short of meaning they don't see anything else - such as Christ teaching as He did about judgment.

The main thing to be seen is the Person and Authority of Jesus Christ. If we do not see Him, grasping at any and all other things He spoke will not accomplish His purpose of building Himself into man and man into Himself.

For the church is really Jesus as the Spirit of divine life transforming and building together men and woman. This takes place upon the foundation of Christ seen as the Son of the living God.

And this is the way God opens an entrance into the realm of His kingdom.

The revelation of Jesus Christ shall prevail over this doctrine of death and eternal suffering.

It is one thing to have a hope that the revelation of the Son of God will be much more prevailing in preaching then other matters.

It is another thing to say that many other matters are not true, because of this preeminence of the revelation of Christ.

Paul did say that the greatest of these Christian virtues is divine love -

"Now there abide faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love." (1 Cor. 13:13)

He said the GREATEST Christian virtue is the divine love.
It is a stretch to add that the other virtues are not needed or are not true.

He says that our understanding of mysteries is partial.
But we should have the divine love as the most prevailing characteristic in the church life.

I concur with that. But it is not because of that that interpretations of some matters are necessarily incorrect.

We may say that they are incomplete.
You, like to pretend that they are complete and add and embellish details of which you really do not know. Then "completing" the picture of the lake of fire you press the Christian.

"Look at these details! Just look at these details that I have provided for you. How can you say Jesus will do these things?"

If you ever read my responses carefully, I never agreed all the time that your added descriptions were always the known case of eternal punishment. Your method of argument portrays that I agree with all your details.

We are not told in all cases all the things. We are told enough to cause us to fear never being reconciled to God.

So, First Corinthian 13 exalts divine love as the highest Christian attribute. it does not say our understanding of mysteries are all wrong, but that they are incomplete.

"For we know IN PART; and we prophesy IN PART." (v.9)

What I know of Luke 12:4,5 or Revelation 20:15 is "in part". You want to argue - "No, it is absolutely wrong."

I think what we know of eternal judgment is in part but not wrong.

Originally posted by @sonship
If you ever read my responses carefully, I never agreed all the time that your added descriptions were always the known case of eternal punishment. Your method of argument portrays that I agree with all your details.

We are not told in all cases all the things. We are told enough to cause us to fear never being reconciled to God.

So, [b] First Cori ...[text shortened]... it is absolutely wrong."

I think what we know of eternal judgment is in part but not wrong.

You have this annoying (to those who are proficient In the English Language) habit of using the following expressions as if they were synonymous.

Eternal judgment
Eternal punishment
Eternal suffering / torment.

This bad habit render your posts useless.

Originally posted by @sonship
It is an interesting treatment -

Ie. virtually - "The doctrine of hell fire will not prevail against the revelation of Christ the Son of the living God."

That may very well be true. But that does not mean the teaching of eternal punishment is not true. It means to me that the revelation of Christ as the Son of the living God will be more prevailing. ...[text shortened]... everything pertaining to death will not be able to conquer this church. Amen. But it will try.

I feel there is something to consider in this revelation of “the gates of hell not prevailing” thing. I’ve been thinking on it.

What if.. just what if...WITHOUT the atoning work of Christ and the revelation of it, the victory he won and the reward he has, then the images of eternal suffering are true. Somehow....it escapes me how, but somehow.

But what if ...because of what Jesus accomplished and the revelation of his new kingdom, his church, that salvation is for all and that the eternity mankind can look forward to is one without eternal suffering.

Maybe it’s like these movies where there are alternate endings. I know this sounds a bit odd but it would certainly provide explaination of how there is such a difference between the two eternal futures of mankind.

Just a thought.

Originally posted by @divegeester
- Jesus knocking on the door of a sinners heart calls out: “let me in”

- Sinner replies: “why?”

- Jesus persists: “so I can save you”

- Sinner is inquisitive: “save me from what?”

- Jesus closes: “from what I’ll do to you in hell if you don’t let me in”

😕

I have tried reading most of the posts to get behind the story but its the same old same old...

In my opinion there is a few things I find wrong with the "dialog" between Jesus and the sinner.

Firstly, that is not the way Jesus would approach a sinner instead it is the way man will approach sinners.
You're making it sound like God is cruel but instead the Bible is clear that God is love.
God does not want anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Your post is clearly indicating a God without love for his creation.

Thus your "closing" of what you "think" Jesus would respond is really just stupid, ignorant and completely false.

Originally posted by @rajk999
You have this annoying (to those who are proficient In the English Language) habit of using the following expressions as if they were synonymous.

Eternal judgment
Eternal punishment
Eternal suffering / torment.

This bad habit render your posts useless.

English is kinda weird for having completely different words meaning the exact same thing isn't it.