Eternal torment VS Annihilation

[dcontroversal]

Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.

For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, we also believe
that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him.

Magenta....you are smarter than that.....this concept applied to a saved Child of God is metaphorically applying sleep to one who has died in CHRIST......it is not saying they are sleeping.....it is saying clearly that death for a believer is like sleep.....It astounds me sometimes.....as much as you know and you totally miss the mark on this subject and or misapply scripture to prove a point that is not there.....and you know I hold you as a dear friend....!

 

[Ahwatukee]

I'd like to address the issue of whether or not Luke 16 is a parable or not, as I feel that this is a key issue in the argument that many Annihilationists attempt to hold whenever they address the issue of soul sleep.

Assuming Luke 16 is a parable:

If Jesus believed in the doctrine of soul-sleep, why tell a story which would so clearly contradict what people believe regarding the issue of soul sleep (according to their reasoning)? If he believed in this so strongly, why invent a story with a hidden truth that states very clearly that people are in conscious, living torment after death? Was Christ confused?

Whether you believe it was a parable or not, you have to try to explain what Christ was trying to say here. I look forward to seeing some of the linguistic gymnasts try to explain it away by passing off its meaning as metaphorical or symbolic (which is ridiculous by the way as when Christ used parables at other points in scripture, he used a simple, literal form that was easily understood by the hearers although its meaning wasn't readily evident to them).

The issue of what a parable is is interesting. When Christ spoke using parables, he never once named a person. You may search in each and every other parable, but you will not find one other person named. Jesus uses people as "plot devices" rather than describing real-world events.

Every parable has an earthly meaning which the crowd could understand, but never a spiritual setting (like Heaven or Hell). Abram's bosom is not an earthly setting. Neither is heaven or hell. Jesus knew that in order to be understood, he would need to have used language the crowd could have related to. Hence the lack of these settings in parables.

Jesus never directly refers to spiritual beings in parables, but only uses comparative elements, such as workers in a field (angels). In the Luke account, Christ clearly refers to these beings.

If Jesus had believed in the doctrine of soul-sleep, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TOLD AN ACCOUNT WHICH CONTRADICTS IT. Parables are meant to support spiritual truth, not contradict it. So, either the account is an example of an event which occurred or Jesus was totally out of sync with what he was trying to say here.

Greetings ToastAndTea,

God bless you for contending for the truth regarding the literal event of the rich man and Lazarus (RMAL) as being a real event, which Jesus revealed to us to give us a glimpse into what takes place at the time of death. For some reason these people who count the rich man and Lazarus as being a parable and the belief in annihilation and soul-sleep, completely ignore and/or twist the other scriptures which prove the opposite.

The correct way to read the Bible and specifically the book of Revelation, is that "if the plain literal sense makes good sense, then don't seek any other sense." That said, if we read the event of the rich man and Lazarus in its plain literal meaning, then it means what it says.

The main theme of Parables is symbolism representing the literal, as you contended for above. The event of the RMAL uses the names of Abraham, Lazarus, Moses, mentions the prophets and the rich man's five brothers and the real place of Hades. It reveals the spirits of these two men being conscious and aware after the death of their bodies in the location of Hades, that Lazarus was comforted and the rich man was in torment in flame and that there was leaving there to warn anyone.

One thing that I do disagree with, is that some people claim that Abraham and Lazarus were in heaven, while the rich man was in Hades. However, the scripture makes it clear that Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man were all in the same location of Hades, but separated by a great chasm. The area that the rich man was in was a place of torment in flame, while the place where Abraham and Lazarus were in, was a place of comfort. I have never understood where people got the idea that they were in heaven?

"And besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that even those who wish cannot cross from here to you, nor can anyone cross from there to us.’

Regarding soul-sleep, we have just too much scripture demonstrating the conscious awareness of the spirit after death. For some reason they block out, twist or ignore those scriptures.

Regarding this, we have Jesus telling the thief who said, "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise." The question then should be, "how could Jesus make a promise to be in paradise that day, when they both died that day?" Jesus was speaking about there spirits going down to that same place of comfort that the spirits of Abraham and Lazarus were in, that place of paradise. Since the Lord's resurrection, when the faithful die, their spirit departs and goes to be in the presence of the Lord. However, when the unfaithful die, their spirits still go down into Hades into that area of torment in flame.

 

[dcontroversal]

Luke 16 is clearly a parable as a part of a ongoing series of them .. It must be you struggle with reading them .Did you try applying the interpretation prescription given in 2 Corinthians 4:18?

Remember without parable Christ spoke not hiding the spiritual meaning from natural man that must literalize the Bible .because they do not mix faith in what they do hear .

The hidden meaning has to do with serving two different kind of teaching masters . The things of God or those of men ?

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon .Luke 16: 13

In support of rightly fully dividing the word of God continuing the same subject

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16: 17

In conclusion to the parable. The Holy Spirit reveals if people refuse to belive all things written in the law and the prophets (sola scriptura) God's two witnesses. Then they have no place in the family of God.

What do you think the conclusion of Luke 16 is?

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.16: 31

Naaaa....Luke 16 is not a parable......the conclusion of Luke 16 is the suffiency of the word of God to save a man....even over one rising from the dead!

Faith comes by hearing and hesring by the word!

 

[Magenta]

Magenta....you are smarter than that.....this concept applied to a saved Child of God is metaphorically applying sleep to one who has died in CHRIST......it is not saying they are sleeping.....it is saying clearly that death for a believer is like sleep.....It astounds me sometimes.....as much as you know and you totally miss the mark on this subject and or misapply scripture to prove a point that is not there.....and you know I hold you as a dear friend....!

Dave, I have been saying all along that death is like sleep, and that that is what Jesus (and many other Biblical writers) likened it to, so it would seem you are the one who has missed something. Perhaps you should take it up with those who claim asleep really means awake and aware. As to the rest of what you say, I find it unfruitful to discuss any further. I am convinced just as you are and we disagree in the final analysis. It does not mean I am stupid or dishonest.

 

[dcontroversal]

Dave, I have been saying all along that death is like sleep, and that that is what Jesus (and many other Biblical writers) likened it to, so it would seem you are the one who has missed something. Perhaps you should take it up with those who claim asleep really means awake and aware. As to the rest of what you say, I find it unfruitful to discuss any further. I am convinced just as you are and we disagree in the final analysis. It does not mean I am stupid or dishonest.

Never said you were stupid and or dishonest, just missing the mark on this particular issue migo......

Is everlasting life everlasting or temporal?

and yet you will say EVERLASTING punishment is TEMPORAL

That is a total contradiction of terms Magenta......if EVERLASTING LIFE IS ETERNAL LIFE, it seems rather ignorant to imply that Everlasting PUNISHMENT IS TEMPORAL!

AND you know I respect you and am not talking down to you!

 

[LW97]

Never said you were stupid and or dishonest, just missing the mark on this particular issue migo......

Is everlasting life everlasting or temporal?

and yet you will say EVERLASTING punishment is TEMPORAL

That is a total contradiction of terms Magenta......if EVERLASTING LIFE IS ETERNAL LIFE, it seems rather ignorant to imply that Everlasting PUNISHMENT IS TEMPORAL!

AND you know I respect you and am not talking down to you!

I did not say it was temporal. If I did, then I was an Universalist.

 

[ToastAndTea]

Greetings ToastAndTea,

God bless you for contending for the truth regarding the literal event of the rich man and Lazarus (RMAL) as being a real event, which Jesus revealed to us to give us a glimpse into what takes place at the time of death. For some reason these people who count the rich man and Lazarus as being a parable and the belief in annihilation and soul-sleep, completely ignore and/or twist the other scriptures which prove the opposite.

The correct way to read the Bible and specifically the book of Revelation, is that "if the plain literal sense makes good sense, then don't seek any other sense." That said, if we read the event of the rich man and Lazarus in its plain literal meaning, then it means what it says.

The main theme of Parables is symbolism representing the literal, as you contended for above. The event of the RMAL uses the names of Abraham, Lazarus, Moses, mentions the prophets and the rich man's five brothers and the real place of Hades. It reveals the spirits of these two men being conscious and aware after the death of their bodies in the location of Hades, that Lazarus was comforted and the rich man was in torment in flame and that there was leaving there to warn anyone.

One thing that I do disagree with, is that some people claim that Abraham and Lazarus were in heaven, while the rich man was in Hades. However, the scripture makes it clear that Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man were all in the same location of Hades, but separated by a great chasm. The area that the rich man was in was a place of torment in flame, while the place where Abraham and Lazarus were in, was a place of comfort. I have never understood where people got the idea that they were in heaven?

"And besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that even those who wish cannot cross from here to you, nor can anyone cross from there to us.’

Regarding soul-sleep, we have just too much scripture demonstrating the conscious awareness of the spirit after death. For some reason they block out, twist or ignore those scriptures.

Regarding this, we have Jesus telling the thief who said, "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise." The question then should be, "how could Jesus make a promise to be in paradise that day, when they both died that day?" Jesus was speaking about there spirits going down to that same place of comfort that the spirits of Abraham and Lazarus were in, that place of paradise. Since the Lord's resurrection, when the faithful die, their spirit departs and goes to be in the presence of the Lord. However, when the unfaithful die, their spirits still go down into Hades into that area of torment in flame.

Yes agreed with everything you said there, also thanks for pointing out the Heaven and Hell fact. Something I overlooked in my original post. They were in a "similar" location, but separated. I need to do more study on the afterlife in the OT as well.

 

[dcontroversal]

I did not say it was temporal. If I did, then I was an Universalist.

I was not addressing you!

 

[Magenta]

The verses you posted all refer to different things, in their proper context.

The context is always what happens in the final analysis to those who oppose God.

Such as here, one of the most well known and best loved Scriptures.

I gave the meaning for word #622 (perish). Even that is contested. Bye for now.

God bless you

 

[ToastAndTea]

The context is always what happens in the final analysis to those who oppose God.

Such as here, one of the most well known and best loved Scriptures.

I gave the meaning for word #622 (perish). Even that is contested. Bye for now.

God bless you

The scripture you use does not support the doctrine of annihilationism because you've taken its original meaning, stripped it away and used the verse on its own to support your own theory. That is what is referred to as "taking scripture out of context".

Goodnight

 

[calibob]

The scripture you use does not support the doctrine of annihilationism because you've taken its original meaning, stripped it away and used the verse on its own to support your own theory. That is what is referred to as "taking scripture out of context".

Goodnight

What's the difference? Either we get saved or we get what we deserve. The first purpose of life is to Love God above all. The first rule of the new covenant is the same. Whoever seeks to save his (or her) life will lose it. No greater love has a person than to give their life for another. Life is temporary Heaven and the second death are permanent. End of sermon!

 

[Magenta]

The scripture you use does not support the doctrine of annihilationism because you've taken its original meaning, stripped it away and used the verse on its own to support your own theory. That is what is referred to as "taking scripture out of context".

Goodnight

The word means to destroy fully (to the uttermost), and applies equally to every similar utterance of which there are many though you reject every single one, as do others. I would appreciate it if you did not ascribe false motives to what I have said and done.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance word #622
destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

From apo and the base of olethros; to destroy fully (reflexively, to
perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

 

[Karraster]

I'd like to address the issue of whether or not Luke 16 is a parable or not, as I feel that this is a key issue in the argument that many Annihilationists attempt to hold whenever they address the issue of soul sleep.

Assuming Luke 16 is a parable:

If Jesus believed in the doctrine of soul-sleep, why tell a story which would so clearly contradict what people believe regarding the issue of soul sleep (according to their reasoning)? If he believed in this so strongly, why invent a story with a hidden truth that states very clearly that people are in conscious, living torment after death? Was Christ confused?

Whether you believe it was a parable or not, you have to try to explain what Christ was trying to say here. I look forward to seeing some of the linguistic gymnasts try to explain it away by passing off its meaning as metaphorical or symbolic (which is ridiculous by the way as when Christ used parables at other points in scripture, he used a simple, literal form that was easily understood by the hearers although its meaning wasn't readily evident to them).

The issue of what a parable is is interesting. When Christ spoke using parables, he never once named a person. You may search in each and every other parable, but you will not find one other person named. Jesus uses people as "plot devices" rather than describing real-world events.

Every parable has an earthly meaning which the crowd could understand, but never a spiritual setting (like Heaven or Hell). Abram's bosom is not an earthly setting. Neither is heaven or hell. Jesus knew that in order to be understood, he would need to have used language the crowd could have related to. Hence the lack of these settings in parables.

Jesus never directly refers to spiritual beings in parables, but only uses comparative elements, such as workers in a field (angels). In the Luke account, Christ clearly refers to these beings.

If Jesus had believed in the doctrine of soul-sleep, HE WOULD NOT HAVE TOLD AN ACCOUNT WHICH CONTRADICTS IT. Parables are meant to support spiritual truth, not contradict it. So, either the account is an example of an event which occurred or Jesus was totally out of sync with what he was trying to say here.

Abraham's bosom is rooted in Rabbinic Tradition. It helps to research those things, it really does if you want to better understand what this speech meant to the audience it was first delivered to. For instance, do you know what significance the water to wine miracle had, concerning the purification pots? Making mud out of dirt and spit on Sabbath for healing? Believe it or not mixing dirt and saliva was against their traditions but you won't find that in Torah. Anyway, here we are modern day trying to understand ancient writings many generations/cultures removed.

 

[dcontroversal]

Again CONSISTENCY must be maintained

Everlasting life = Eternal life

Everlasting punishment = Eternal punishment

End of story!

To say everlasting in the second one above = temporary = inconsistent application of the word of God!

 

[ToastAndTea]

The word means to destroy fully (to the uttermost), and applies equally to every similar utterance of which there are many though you reject every single one, as do others. I would appreciate it if you did not ascribe false motives to what I have said and done.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance word #622
destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

From apo and the base of olethros; to destroy fully (reflexively, to
perish, or lose), literally or figuratively -- destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

This is the last time i am going to address your points (as there's only so many times i can repeat the same thing). You've provided me with the etymology of a word "to perish". Why? I know what it means. It refers to spiritual death, conscious living separation in Hell after death for those who reject Christ. And what you constantly do is try to use the verse as a way to support your idea that Christ destroys the spirit soul and body after death which is false so I'll do you a favor and provide the original context so you can see what i mean. Look what John writes after: "For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved." Saved from what exactly? Extinction? Uhh

As for ascribing false motives i am not even going to try and go down that road with you as i can see this is less about the actual point being made and more about point scoring with you so i will leave it there

Anyway please do not link me in this conversation again as i will not respond. If you want to contact me personally to discuss this issue i would be happy to do so.

 

[ToastAndTea]

Abraham's bosom is rooted in Rabbinic Tradition. It helps to research those things, it really does if you want to better understand what this speech meant to the audience it was first delivered to. For instance, do you know what significance the water to wine miracle had, concerning the purification pots? Making mud out of dirt and spit on Sabbath for healing? Believe it or not mixing dirt and saliva was against their traditions but you won't find that in Torah. Anyway, here we are modern day trying to understand ancient writings many generations/cultures removed.

I'm not sure what point you trying to make, sorry. Were you saying that my points were poorly researched? You're entitled to think that. No problem at all.

The point being made is not Rabbinic tradition. The point is the structure of a parable being wrongly applied to the account of Luke 16 in order to pass off the text as metaphorical because its something they disagree with.

Anyways i am done being unpopular on here. I guess the truth really does turn people away. *shrugs*

 

[Ahwatukee]

Abraham's bosom is rooted in Rabbinic Tradition. It helps to research those things, it really does if you want to better understand what this speech meant to the audience it was first delivered to. For instance, do you know what significance the water to wine miracle had, concerning the purification pots? Making mud out of dirt and spit on Sabbath for healing? Believe it or not mixing dirt and saliva was against their traditions but you won't find that in Torah. Anyway, here we are modern day trying to understand ancient writings many generations/cultures removed.

Hello Karraster,

The phrase "Abraham's Bosom" is not to be interpreted as a place, but rather Lazarus was taken to Abraham's side, both being in Sheol/Hades. The event of the rich man and Lazarus has nothing to do with Rabbinic traditions that we can't understand. God wrote His word so that all people could understand what He was conveying. It just requires study. The event of the rich man and Lazarus interpreted in its plain literal sense makes gives us an insight to what takes place for the spirit at the time of death. When people force a parabolic interpretation on it, the meaning is lost, distorting the Lord's word.

 

[Ahwatukee]

This is the last time i am going to address your points (as there's only so many times i can repeat the same thing). You've provided me with the etymology of a word "to perish". Why? I know what it means. It refers to spiritual death, conscious living separation in Hell after death for those who reject Christ. And what you constantly do is try to use the verse as a way to support your idea that Christ destroys the spirit soul and body after death which is false so I'll do you a favor and provide the original context so you can see what i mean. Look what John writes after: "For God did not send His son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved." Saved from what exactly? Extinction? Uhh

As for ascribing false motives i am not even going to try and go down that road with you as i can see this is less about the actual point being made and more about point scoring with you so i will leave it there

Anyway please do not link me in this conversation again as i will not respond. If you want to contact me personally to discuss this issue i would be happy to do so.

I've gone around and aground in the same circles with Magenta. Her error, as well as with others, is the translated word "destroy" or "perish," which she has defined as annihilation or extinction, instead of considering the Greek words "olethros, apoleia, and apollumi, from which destruction/perish are derived from. Olethros, apoleia, and apollumi, are defined specifically as not implying extinction (annihilation). Below is an example of the definition of the word apoleia:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

The word "destruction" is translated from the "apoleia" which is defined as follows.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 684 apṓleia (from 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") – destruction, causing someone (something) to be completely severed – cut off (entirely) from what could or should have been.

/apṓleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" (see the meaning of the root-verb, 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being

in particular, the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God.

Consequently, regarding "eternal misery" it is not possible to experience that if one doesn't exist.

 

[LW97]

I was not addressing you!

I see you adressed Magenta... is SHE an Universalist?

 

[LW97]

I've gone around and aground in the same circles with Magenta. Her error, as well as with others, is the translated word "destroy" or "perish," which she has defined as annihilation or extinction, instead of considering the Greek words "olethros, apoleia, and apollumi, from which destruction/perish are derived from. Olethros, apoleia, and apollumi, are defined specifically as not implying extinction (annihilation). Below is an example of the definition of the word apoleia:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

The word "destruction" is translated from the "apoleia" which is defined as follows.

HELPS Word-studies
Cognate: 684 apṓleia (from 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") – destruction, causing someone (something) to be completely severed – cut off (entirely) from what could or should have been.

/apṓleia ("perdition") does not imply "annihilation" (see the meaning of the root-verb, 622 /apóllymi, "cut off") but instead "loss of well-being" rather than being

in particular, the destruction which consists in the loss of eternal life, eternal misery, perdition, the lot of those excluded from the kingdom of God.

Consequently, regarding "eternal misery" it is not possible to experience that if one doesn't exist.

That is not the best argument. If he is destryed in misery, it is still misery. "Apollymi" can be translated many ways, just like "aionious". While I believe "eternal"/"everlasting" IS a decent translation im Matthew 25:41-46, if we read Jude 7... are the cities still burnings milleniums later?