Conference yukon::christian_v7

Not to dampen the discussion - discuss away - but I've never been much 
interested in discussing the specifics of Hell or the exact form of the fate of 
the unsaved.  Hell is eternity without God, and nothing that is added to that 
can really make it significantly worse.

If someone offered me a choice between an all expenses paid trip for a month to
a tropical island, or to be painfully put to death, I don't think I'd bother to
ask the question: "Now HOW would you put me to death?" before making up my mind.

And even that comparison doesn't come close to reality.  Eternity face to face
with God will be so much more than we can imagine that it will make that 
tropical vacation here on earth, with God only seen "through a glass, darkly," 
seem like being put to death in comparison.  Likewise, eternity without God, 
whether burning in a lake of fire or just allowed to go on for eternity making 
myself the center of my existence, will make being put to death here on earth 
in the most painful way imagineable seem so trifling in comparison that it would
be as desirable as a tropical vacation seems now.

Paul

    
    Hi Tony,
    
    I am extremely convinced that the Bible is the authority on this
    matter, not our philosophies on the nature of God's agape.  There is
    nothing in my understanding of Scripture or God which causes me
    consternation when considering that eternal life with God is the reward 
    for the believer and eternal separation from God the life of the 
    unbeliever.
    
    Of course, my carnal nature says let everyone go to heaven whatever
    he's done/not done.  My spiritual nature says God is wise and His plans
    are not to be scrutinized for accuracy by me.
    
    jeff

    >God forbid that I glory in NOTHING save the pure, pristine
    >gospel and be a watchman zealously guarding the truth and
    >sending out the cry when others picture Christ much differently
    >and less loving than He really is.
    
    Tony, my reaction to this is just plain BALDERDASH!!!  God's word
    indicates Hell as burning inferno, it is very clear the torment there. 
    Now, as the Bible takes us through Second Coming of Christ, it says
    that Satan is released after x-amount of time.  I guess we won't know
    till eternity, whether or not the includes those souls who rejected
    Christ in this life.  This is one of those, the Bible doesn't say He,
    but it also doesn't say He won't.
    
    However, AGAPE was complete in CHRIST.  To assume that God obliterates
    the soul that rejects Him, is ludicrous.  Otherwise, you have just
    called the Bible as being false everywhere it references Hell as a
    literal place for unbelievers.
    
    If your daughter needed a liver, and your liver could save her life,
    AGAPE would mean giving your life for hers.  That is REAL AGAPE.  That
    is what God did for us.
    
    Those who reject God's AGAPE [CHRIST], after having the full knowledge
    of CHRIST will suffer Hell.  Why do you consider that unloving?  If you
    gave your life for your daughter, how would you feel if she cursed you
    as an adult woman?
    
    We know our God is a God of emotions, through the Holy Spirit, the word
    *love* is emotive, isn't it?  The word *jealous* is emotive isn't it? 
    The word *grieve* is emotive, isn't it?  
    
    Nancy

    re: last two
    
    Excellent replies, Jeff & Nancy.
    
    Tony, as Nancy & Jeff have said, the Word of God plainly
    says what will be the "reward" of the UNbeliever - it also 
    clearly defines what will be the REWARD of the Believer.
    
    So are you saying you accept what the Word has to say about
    the future of the Believers' soul - why do you question the
    unbelievers' future?  Do you believe the Bible is the inerrant
    Word of God and was written as dictated by Him?
    
    Karen

    Tony:
    
    A few thoughts went through me head as I read your note.  
    
    1. If I read it correctly, I would paraphrase what you said in that
       a loving (agape) God would not allow you to suffer in the way we
       interpret hell to be (Literal lake of fire)
    
    	There are many spiritual matters I for one do not understand;
    however, the Bible does say that Hell was actually prepared for the
    devil and his angels.  That is a spiritual matter and I think we will
    have to be made in his perfection (with Him) to fully comprehend why
    Satan and the fallen angels would incur such wrath.
    
    2. My first thought was, Well, gee, I have seen many saved people
    suffer tremendously, never mind the unsaved.  After seeing this, why
    would I even try to suggest that hell as I interpret it, doesn't exist?
    (A literal lake of fire)
    
    If sin is so abomidible to God that he suffered on the cross, then it
    seems to me he had a strong passion to save us from something!  
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    Jack
                                                  

I always use to think of Hell as a place (lake of fire) where the unsaved
are tormented forever...

But I once saw a TV show (I believe it was called The World Tomorrow, or 
some such... it's usually on Sundays, late at night... But I haven't seen
it in a while)

Anyways, on one of these shows they took a closer look at Hell and what
it all means... To sum it up (my brain is foggy, I can't give real
specifics on the show), Hell is really Hades but is confused for the
lake of fire. Hades gives up it's dead and is then tossed into the lake
of fire (along with death), which is the second death (Rev 20:13-14).

Our view of Hell is influenced more by Dante's Inferno (sp?) then by the
Bible.... The show then went into a closer look at what this lake of 
fire might be (using not only the book of Revelations, but others from
the old and new testament) and came to the idea that the lake of fire is
a literal second death, where body and soul are destroyed. There is some
verse somewhere (anyone know? it's part of the N.T.) that says the effect
of "Do not fear him who can destroy your body, fear him who can destroy
both body and soul."

So this show influenced my view of Hell and what will happen to the unsaved.
It was presented very well and logically and educationally (i.e. not how I
presented it here!). I don't know if this show was right, but I'm not sure
the traditional view of Hell is correct either.

In Him,
Scott

Hell and hades would make a good study, Scott.  Until then, a few verses:
Number of occurances of search: hell  -  54.
I'm just clipping a few.  Yes, there are some interesting verses also
that might confuse hades and hell, so let's discuss them (on Monday) ;-)
----------------------


Matthew 10:28  And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill
the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in
hell.

Matthew 23:33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
damnation of hell?

Mark 9:43  And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:45  And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:47  And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee
to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast
into hell fire:

Hi Scott, 

Hell = Hades (Greek) = Sheol (O.T., Hebrew)

This is the temporary residence of the dead, which is finished with in 
Revelation 20:14

Gehenna = The Lake of Fire

- Name taken from the place of burning outside Jerusalem.  This is the
place of eternal torment where the lost go after the judgement in
Revelation 20:15

This can be quite an extensive study, which I haven't time to enter 
tonight.  Maybe someone? - or another time...

Briefly, hell had three areas.

	1. Place of the lost 
	2. Place of the saved (Abraham's bosom, paradise)
	3. Place of the fallen angels / demons who had specific judgement 
	  (Tartarus - 2 Peter 2:4)

#2 was opened into heaven when Jesus rose from the dead.

'Hell' is often loosely used when 'the lake of fire' is intended.

Sorry to leave it hanging, without the references etc, maybe it should be 
another topic.  I'll try to come back to this one with time...

					apologies
							Andrew

Hi Tony,

Well, I won't go as far as to say: balderdash, but I do strongly disagree
with you.  It's difficult for us, with our limited understanding, to try to
tell God what agape means.  Afteral, He should know what it means, and He
should know what is "consistent" with it, and what isn't.  It would be a
bit presumptuous of me to tell God what He's supposed to be like, don't you
think?

I have a question for you.  I know that those who believe as you do, and I
assume that you will agree with this, claim that Luke 16:19-31 (the story
of the rich man and Lazarus) is just a parable.  If, as I am sure you say,
this is a parable, what's it trying to teach us?  Certainly for Jesus to
intimate that an unbeliever (the rich man) is tormented at all after death,
rather than annihilated, is tantamount to lying, assuming, as you say, that
they will *not* be tormented.

From this story (or parable, if you will), it would be valid to assume that:

	a)  the unrighteous do not simply sleep until judgment day
	b)  they are tormented for a time (even if they are ultimately
		annihilated)
	c)  they are tormented in flames
	d)  Jesus referred to this place of torment as hell
	e)  this was the rich man's "reward" for how he lived his life, ie
		"remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good
		things...but now...thou art tormented", Luke 16:25 (KJV)

If, however, as you might claim, the true "in accordance with agape" state of
the unbeliever were:

	a)  the unrighteous are asleep (knowing nothing) until the day
		of judgment
	b)  they are instantaneously annihilated after judgment
	c)  the flames destroy, rather then torment
	d)  hell as a place of torment does not exist, since it (presumably)
		is inconsistent with God's nature, ie agape
	e)  the only "reward" for the unbeliever is ceasing to exist
		Therefore there can be no "it will be worse for them..."
		in the "day of judgment".  ie the punishment ("reward") is
		the same for all of them.  (this is just a side issue that
		is implied by Jesus' statements that it would be better for
		some "cities", I assume Jesus meant the inhabitants and not
		the buildings, in the day of judgment)  This belief would 
		also assume that those who never heard the Gospel, and died
		as unbelievers, receive the same punishment as those who
		clearly rejected the Gospel.

What was the purpose of Jesus lying in this "parable"?

One more "philosophical" question:  if time does not exist, how long does it
take to annihilate someone in the Lake of fire?

Rob

    Rob I did not completely understand your points. But may I offer this?
    
    I contend that when one dies they immediately go either to Heaven or
    Hell and begin serving their eternity. They are fully encompassed by
    either Love or !God (out side of the Love of God).  In the instant in
    which a person dies, their fate for all eternity is determined (judged
    final if you will).  Now the Lord's Day is still to come or ALL. On the
    Lord's day that is when FINAL judgement is passed. The judges hammer
    hits the plate. To those in heaven our Saviour will say, I find you
    innocent, go enjoy the house I have prepared for you. To those
    experiencing eternal torment, our Saviour decrees, - I find you
    completely sinful and depraved, depart from me. Wrestle with your sin
    for all eternity.
    
    Now whether God in His infinite mercy chooses to terminate the
    existance of all those (including Satanand his angels), that have
    "gone to Hell" is his matter. Those that have been found innocent WE
    KNOW we will live forever with the Almighty, we are continually told
    this.
    
    Lastly, I argue that is is of no value to discuss the "eternal" dead.
    For did not Christ tell us "Leave the dead to bury the dead." Therefore
    I belive it is of little value what we think about the dead, let them
    be as they will be. You and I must keep our eyes on the prize of
    eternal Love, - God.
    
    PDM

.10 (Rob)

Thank you, Rob, for your precision and well-said reply.

Re .11 PDM,

I would agree with the statement that we are to "leave the dead to bury
their dead", but I consider "eternal judgment" to be a foundational doctrine.
That would mean, for me, that I have to put a good deal of importance on 
agreement to this doctrine.  Since eternal judgment (Heb. 6) is a foundational
doctrine, a poor (or false) understanding of this doctrine will lead to 
further errors in doctrine.

To clarify my points:

1)  A.  I contend that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable, but an actual account
	of a rich man and a beggar named Lazarus (based on the fact that this
	story does not fit the general pattern of a parable, ie Jesus did
	not give any other "character" in a parable a name)

    B.  Those who hold to the doctrine of annihilation rather than eternal
	torment have to grapple with Luke 16, ie it is a "problem" text for
	them.

	1.  In order to deal with Luke 16 and hold to the doctrine of annihi-
	    lation, Luke 16 is considered a parable.

	2.  My contention is: if Luke 16 is to be considered a parable, it
	    still presents problems for the doctrine of annihilation, because
	    Jesus makes statements (even if in parable form) that are not
	    reconcilable with the doctrine of annihilation.  The state of the
	    unbelieving dead, as presented in Luke 16, is not what one would
	    expect *IF* annihilation were true.

	3.  Therefore, even if Luke 16 were a parable, in order to hold to
	    the doctrine of annihilation, I would have to assume that Jesus
	    lied.

    C.  Since I know that Jesus could not have lied (even in parable form)
	I have to accept that the state of the unbelieving dead is one
	of torment and not destruction.

2)  Even if I were to accept the doctrine of annihilation, there is a somewhat
    philosophical problem.  That being, when time no longer exists (and it 
    won't on "judgment day") how long does it take to annihilate someone?  I
    contend that, since there will no longer be any time, the answer to my
    question (ie how long will it take?) is: forever.

    Again, this is a purely philosophical issue.  If there is no time, even
    an "instant" is equal to "forever", because there is no relationship to
    "length" of time (assuming that time is linear, which I do).

I also believe that the Bible teaches that a man consists of three parts (the
topic of the "tripartite" man is being discussed elsewhere).  That it is not
inconsistent with scripture to believe that while "body and soul" will be de-
stroyed, the spirit (the essence of what the person is) may not be.  That the
unbeliever's "spirit" is hopelessly rebellious and sinful (whereas the believ-
er's, via the Holy Spirit, is obedient and holy).  This very sinful essence of
man is what will be tormented forever (without end).  It is this very essence
of who "men" are, that, when resurrected (even after a taste of hell, see
Luke 16:19-31) will be deceived by the devil yet again, and try to overthrow
God.  My conclusion: the unbeliever, after "death", is hopelessly and irrev-
ocably rebellious and lost.  He would not repent, even if given another chance.

We live in a world that, while full of sin, is still "peopled" by human beings
who are under the influence of the Holy Spirit (the anti-Christ will not be
revealed until He that "withholds" allows it, see 2 Thess. 2:1-12).  We have
not yet experienced what people would really be like, if the Holy Spirit (God)
were not exercising some control over the world, and if sin were truly allowed
to reign unhindered (if you think things are bad now...you ain't seen nuthin'
yet).

I also believe (but I'm not positive) that a general law of nature is that 
matter cannot be destroyed.  It can be converted to other things (normally
with "waste" products), but it cannot be annihilated.  At best, even with no
waste products, it is converted to energy and gases.  I believe that it is
impossible to annihilate a person, something (the sinful and rebellious nature,
or spirit of a man) remains, even after the rest has been "burned" off, or de-
stroyed.

Rob

      Hi Brothers and Sisters,
    
        It is evident that I won't be able to keep up.
    
        One thing that would help me is if others assisted me.  For 
        example, there are others who believe that the "in between 
        time" is a time of sleep.  For example, "Lazarus sleepeth" or
        "Who can praise thee in the grave" or "the dead know not any-
        thing" would certainly have to be considered tough passages
        for the view that the "dead do know a thing or two" and that
        "the dead can praise thee."
    
        Anyway, as there are others who believe the "in between time"
        is a time of unconscioussness (even if they believe the ultimate
        time is one of eternal consciouss torment) they could take this 
        (Lazarus) up.  One important thing is the fact that if one believes
        that after death and before resurrection people are consciouss,
        it is required that the body (at least) is dead.  However, in the
        Lazarus account, THE BODY IS ALIVE.  Lazarus has a tongue.  He
        yearns for drink.  (He of no physical component requires physical
        sustenance!  Imagine that!)  In other words, the Lazarus account
        absolutely requires that the people have physical bodies during
        this time; something which they will not have (even if you supposed
        they were alive).  Thus a literal story defeats itself in requiring
        something (a physical component) which scripture elsewhere states
        one won't have.
    
        If no one else replies to Lazarus, I'll reply time permitting.
    
        Just a couple quick thoughts...
    
        What scriptures show any of you that the unsaved spend eternity 
        (time forever) in eternal consciouss torment?  Please cite them.
    
        Another thing is this "hell" discussion which to me is just further
        evidence that the traditions of men and not the sacred word itself
        is the principle vehicle through which people believe as they do
        on the subject.  Hell is not the "residence" during eternity.  It
        is so during the in between time.
    
        I have a problem taking a whole lot of stock in a discussion on
        hell when tradition rules and not the Bible.
    
        Anyway, as time is limited - please give me a single thing to
        reply on.  Would you like it to be Lazarus?
    
        And please, cite me a text which states that the duration is time
        eternal.
    
                                                     Thanks,
    
                                                     Tony

> For example, "Lazarus sleepeth" or

I have to run or I would give this a better reply, but when Jesus said
this, his disciples didn't get his drift.  So he said it plainly.
Lazarus is dead.  Death is referred to as sleep, not surprizing in
a tripartitie man for the body to be "asleep" (dead) but when taken
with the other teachings of Jesus, it can only mean the body and not the
spirit.

       <<< Note 94.14 by STRATA::BARBIERI "God can be so appreciated!" >>>
    
    >    One important thing is the fact that if one believes
    >    that after death and before resurrection people are consciouss,
    >    it is required that the body (at least) is dead.  However, in the
    >    Lazarus account, THE BODY IS ALIVE.  Lazarus has a tongue.  He
    >    yearns for drink.  
    
    I believe the spirit has a body.  God has physical attributes in the
    Bible and God is Spirit. We're talking things temporal and things
    etherial here.  The material universe may not be able to have two
    things occupy the same space, but what then when the material plane and
    the spiritual plane intersect?
    
    We'll get new bodies, but I don't think we're mere vapors (unless that
    is how these dull senses (through the dark glass) perceive the spirit
    to be.
    
    >(He of no physical component requires physical sustenance!  Imagine
    >that!)
    
    So the desire for comfort of the rich man, as well as eating in heaven,
    does not necessarily require the body as we know it.  Also remember,
    though that we will know each other in the after life. This is an
    interesting side discussion, especially considering we shed this shell
    at various ages.  The fact is, we don't *know* all the facts but some
    we do know, because Jeus told us so.  Hell is one of those things.
    
    (Oh and by the way, if King David understood death as sleep either in a
    literal or metaphorical sense, how does this literal or metaphorical
    staement stack up against Christ's statements?  Weakly and not fully
    understanding, at best.)
    
>        What scriptures show any of you that the unsaved spend eternity 
>        (time forever) in eternal consciouss torment?  Please cite them.
    
    I'll beg off of this one for *this* reply, because of time.  I believe
    Rob Druel supplied some.  Did you miss them?
        
>        I have a problem taking a whole lot of stock in a discussion on
>        hell when tradition rules and not the Bible.
    
    I think this is a very presumptious statement, and in counter, I have a
    problem with taking a whole lot of stock in a discussion where man's
    reasoning rules over both tradition and the Bible.
    
    Mark

      Mark,
    
        Please, skip the "man's reasoning" bit.
    
        I have said many times that I came to my reasoning ON THE
        BASIS OF WHAT THE WORD SAYS and not vice versa.
    
        If you continue to make this observation, please at least
        acknowledge the fact that many times I have replied to it.
    
        Hell is a different thing.  Here we've got cases of people
        talking about a subject and using 'hell' to explain something
        which scripture NEVER used hell to explain - but which tradition
        has several times.
    
        Back to reasoning...
    
        It looks to me like it (reasoning) cuts both ways.
    
        All I simply ask is if I state that my reasoning came AFTER what
        I believe the Word has revealed and not BEFORE that I am dignified
        by not having people assert otherwise.
    
        I really don't think that's fair.
    
                                                    Tony

Re .16 Mark,

Incidentally, my last name is Marshall, not Druel :-)  I happen to work in 
Dresden, and the location code is DRE and I am an Ultrix specialist, hence
the name of my system:  DREUL1 (DREsden ULtrix 1).

I am hoping to get to do some more study on this issue in the next week, or
so.  However, I will be out of the office starting tomorrow, and won't be 
back until the 21st.

I would also agree with you, Mark, that it is probably easier to see David's
use of "the dead know nothing" as metaphorical than Jesus' teaching that they
are in torment. (that is what you said, wasn't it? :-)  David relates to things
from "man's" perspective, whereas Jesus is revealing the Truth from God's per-
spective.

Rob

94.17 (Tony)

>        Please, skip the "man's reasoning" bit.

You don't recognise tit for tat?  *YOU* started the "bit" over "tradition"
saying that we're putting tradition over the Word.  On the same token,
I can claim that YOU are putting "reasoning" over the Word.

>        If you continue to make this observation, please at least
>        acknowledge the fact that many times I have replied to it.

Acknowledged.  Would you also acknowledge that you started the "observations"
over "tradition?"

>        I really don't think that's fair.

Then don't start it.  Go back and see if I am not correct.
From .0 (my emphasis added **)

>        It is my sincere and extremely zealous conviction that the 
>        *traditional view* of what ultimately befalls the unsaved (eternal         
>        consciouss torment) *is 100% inconsistent* with agape and thus
>        *100% in conflict with the "teaching of the gospel."*

And this is what started the latest volley:

.14>        I have a problem taking a whole lot of stock in a discussion on
.14>        hell when tradition rules and not the Bible.

So, who started it, Tony?  My response in .16 was this:

.16>    I think this is a very presumptious statement, and in counter, I have a
.16>    problem with taking a whole lot of stock in a discussion where man's
.16>    reasoning rules over both tradition and the Bible.

Note the wording; I purposely made it the same as yours to reflect the 
original source.

I'm perfectly willing to keep these slings out of the debate, but not
as willing, (call it a flaw in my nature), to let the slings go unchecked.

Mark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rob (Marshall),
  Sorry.  I had a lapse.  Funny how we recognize each other by our node 
monikers.

Mark

    re: .19  
    
    Hi Mark,
    
      I see what you're saying.
    
      I'm sorry.
    
      Let me just state objectively that I intend not to judge anyone's
      heart, but that if "hell" is being applied to where the unsaved
      _end up_, then perhaps tradition has had some influence on the
      belief as the Word (so far as I know) never denotes hell as that
      place.
    
      Thanks for showing me sin in my heart.
    
                                                   God Bless,
    
                                                   Tony

>      Thanks for showing me sin in my heart.

Tony,
  I hope you know I consider you a friend and brother.  Our disagreement,
even strenously held, will not change this.
  Now, let's go on, if you like.
  Still friends?

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        Oh yeah, sure.
    
        I just want you to know that no issue tears at my heart like
        this one.  It just plucks my heart right out.  Believing as
        I do...when someone believes that God would allow  consciouss 
        torment, evil, and sin to exist forever...
    
        I can't express how this hurts.
    
                                                    Oh Well,
    
                                                    Tony

I cannot read the inflection in "yeah, sure" so I hope it was geniuine.

>        I just want you to know that no issue tears at my heart like
>        this one.  It just plucks my heart right out.  Believing as
>        I do...when someone believes that God would allow  consciouss 
>        torment, evil, and sin to exist forever...

That it may, but it does not change the truth of it.  It is going to
do more than tear people's hearts out come Judgment Day.

I'm sorry this hurts you, but this issue is important to all of us,
and Hell is a very real place where people will suffer for *THEIR*
decision to reject God.

Mark

	re.22

	Tony,

	God will vindicate Himself. He always does. You do not need to feel
sorry for God.

	What should pluck our hearts out is knowing that those who have
rejected Jesus as Lord and Savior will burn and suffer torments in the
eternal fire of Gehenna.


ace

re .24

	Ace,

	God is the source of life, hence for people to suffer torment
	in an eternal fire would mean that God would have to keep such
	ones alive for this purpose. But the Bible tells us that 
	eternal life is a gift from God to those who want to know him
	and not those who reject him, John 17:3 and John 3:16. As Matthew 
	18:9b NWT reads "it is finer for you to enter one-eyed into life 
	than be thrown with two eyes into the fiery Gehenna." Nothing will 
	be left of those thrown into the fiery Gehenna. Just as nothing
	is left of the city of Sodom and Gomorrah today, so to will
	be the pattern for ungodly persons (2 Peter 2:6, Jude 7).

	Death and Hades are spoken of as being thrown into the "lake of
	fire" , Revelation 20:14. One knows that these are symbolic, you
	can't make death and Hades suffer torment, so the "lake of fire"
	must symbolise total destruction or being done away with for all 
	eternity. As confirmed when one looks in context with Revelation 
	21:4 which mentions that "death will be no more", this will be
	true because it has been symbolically thrown into the lake of fire.

	Also Jehovah God is a God of Justice, now no matter what a person
	does in this life, the penalty cannot equate to eternal punishment
	in hellfire. Those who continue to disrespect life will lose their
	life, this is justice no?, ( Dueteronomy 19:21).

	Phil.

    
    
    	Im a bit confused.. For those of you who beleive there is no
    	Hell,(hell of fire) but beleive God is in Heaven, where is Satin
    	residing???
    
    	Why would the Bible make future for the unsaved sound so harsh
    	in it's words if it was'nt an accual place??
    
    	Don't get me wrong, I have friends and family who (at least the way
    	I see it) are unsaved, and would rather beleive that when they
        physically die, that they would not literally be tossed into a
    	lake of fire and live eternity in torment.....
    
    	Bill

                     <<< Note 94.27 by GYMRAT::OUELLETTE >>>
                 -< This subject is a tough one for me..(???) >-

>    	Why would the Bible make future for the unsaved sound so harsh
>    	in it's words if it was'nt an accual place??
>    
>    	Don't get me wrong, I have friends and family who (at least the way
>    	I see it) are unsaved, and would rather beleive that when they
>       physically die, that they would not literally be tossed into a
>    	lake of fire and live eternity in torment.....

From what I currently understand, people will be tossed in a lake of fire,
but I don't think it is clear as to what will happen when they get tossed
in...

1) Will they spend eternity in the lake of fire, subject to the torment of
   the burning flames (or something to that effect)?

2) Or will they be totally destroyed in the lake of fire, for ETERNITY?

I always used to think like option #1, but after seeing that TV show I 
mentioned in an earlier reply to this note, I am not sure now...
It might very well be option #2... Or it could be something that is 
truely beyond our human understanding... (for example, can we be sure that
the lake of fire is real, or is it a metaphore for something beyond our
comprehension?)

In any case, the more I think about it, option #1 doesn't seem to fit in
with the Bible as much as option #2...  The God I see in the Bible (I haven't
read all of it, but am in the process) wouldn't torment people for eternity... 
Destroy them for their sins, yes... but torment for eternity, I dunno...

In Him,
Scott

    Well, might as well throw in a few comments....
    
    As far as I see it, when God's word speaks of "death", it is not
    speaking of annihilation, but rather separation.  "Death" means to be
    separated from God (for eternity in the case of the unbelievers, IMO).
    
    Regarding the extent of "time" in this punishment: "And if thy hand
    offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life
    maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never
    shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
    quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for
    thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into
    hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: " (Mark 9:43-45)
    
    Mark L.

            <<< Note 94.29 by CHTP00::CHTP05::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>

>    As far as I see it, when God's word speaks of "death", it is not
>    speaking of annihilation, but rather separation.  "Death" means to be
>    separated from God (for eternity in the case of the unbelievers, IMO).

I get a different view - but see what are are saying... But how about
Mathhew 10:28 (NIV)?

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell"

I'm not sure, but believe "hell" in the above scripture is translated from
the word Geahana(sp?)... anyone know for sure?
    
>    Regarding the extent of "time" in this punishment: "And if thy hand
>    offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life
>    maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never
>    shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not
>    quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for
>    thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into
>    hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: " (Mark 9:43-45)
    
Just curious:  what do people think the "worm" is? for example in
Isaiah 66:24 (NIV)   "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies
of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their
fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

If they have dead bodies, then is the worm the soul? If so, how does that 
relate to Mat 10:28 I quoted above?

In Him,
Scott

Phil,

	What do "Jehovah Witnesses" believe is the eternal state of Satan?

Tony,

	What do Seventh Day Adventist believe is the eternal state of Satan?


I believe he suffers eternal torments of Gehenna.	


ace

      Hi Mark,
    
        The "yeah sure" was genuine - no sarcasm intended!!!
    
        I didn't have a chance to get in until now and so couldn't
        reply before.
    
        Scott...
    
            Bless you brother that you are seeing the truth!  I am
        working on some replies that I believe are strong support for
        the truth.
    
            Hold on!
    
                                                   Tony

      Re: .25
                                                      
      Hi Andy,
    
        Say, that's pretty nice, BUT
    
        Doesn't God look on the heart and not the outward act?
        Do the unsaved have hearts?  If so, are they converted?
        If not, are they not in sin "for whatever is not of faith
        is sin"???
    
        I will respond to this, but I believe there is TIME and that
        one passage in Revelation speaking of "no time" has had an
        extreme amount of speculation placed upon it.
    
        For example, does not the millenium include a duration of time
        and does not the event called the millenium come after the
        Rev scripture which speaks of "time is no more?"
    
        Anyway, I'll discuss time...time permitting!!  ;-)
    
        I appreciate the Spirit behind yoiur words Andy.
    
                                                  Love Back to Ya,
    
                                                  Tony

re .31

	Ace,

;What do "Jehovah Witnesses" believe is the eternal state of Satan?

	Well we don't believe that Satan has an "eternal state" as
	such. The reason I say this, is that the word eternal can
	have the understanding of "without beginning or end of
	existence; unchangeable." The Bible shows all things were
	created by Jehovah God, Revelation 4:11. Satan is a title
	that has been given to an angel who rebelled against God.
	So God did not create Satan as he is now, being an adversary
	is something he has chosen to be (1 Peter 5:8), in fact sometime
	in the past this angel would have found favour with Jehovah God.

	In many places, the Bible gives us some indication of who Satan
	is and his position in the past, now and the future. Here are
	some:


	In the past, he has not been confined to a fiery hell after his
	rebellion because the Scriptures indicate that he continued to
	have access into heaven itself (Job 1:6).

	Today, the Bible shows that he is the "ruler of the world" in that
	he continues to have a great influence on men in that he is 
	"misleading the entire inhabited earth" (John 14:30,1 John 5:19, 
	2 Corinthians 4:4, Revelation 12:9, Acts 26:17,18)

	In the future, he will be restrained in a symbolic abyss so that
	he might not "mislead the nations any more" until after the end 
	of the millenial rule (Revelation 20:1-3). In otherwords he will
	not be able to infleunce mankind during the thousand year rule
	(Revelation 20:7-10). Aftwerwards he will be released, again his 
	intention will be the same that is to mislead mankind just as he 
	did originally with Adam & Eve. He is a manslayer and knows that 
	he has only a short time of existence, hence he wants to take as 
	many of mankind with him.

	Revelation 20:7-10 shows that sometime after the the Thousand year
	reign of God's kingdom, that Satan will be cast into the lake
	of fire. Where the false prophet and wild beast where flung, both
	the false prophet and wild beast are symbolic as to is the lake 
	of fire. The lake of fire is a place of no return, for in verse
	14 death and Hades are also thrown in there and we know as promised
	by the only true God that "death will be no more", Revelation 21:3-5.
	The promise from God is that death will not return to mankind
	after "death" has been hurled into the "lake of fire". As stated in my 
	previous reply, it would not make any sense to say that in a literal 
	way that "death" will suffer torment forever.

	I think 1 John 2:17 NWT sums this up for me, it reads "Furthermore,
	the world is passing away and so is it's desire, but he that does 
	the will of God remains forever." The "world" including Satan and
	his demons are "passing away" or will be no more (will no longer 
	exist), but *only* those who do the will of God will remain forever.

	Phil.
	 	

	  

>"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
>Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell"

This thought just struck me.  The verse does not say this:

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather, be afraid of the One who destroys both soul and body in hell."

In English, it makes a difference.

Re: .26  (Phil)

>	Also Jehovah God is a God of Justice, now no matter what a person
>	does in this life, the penalty cannot equate to eternal punishment
>	in hellfire. 

This is mere human reasoning -- an opinion not supported by scripture.  Who
are you to say what God can and cannot do?  Who are you to say what God will
and will not do?  Stick with what God has said he will and will not do.

This is also logically inconsistent with your belief in an eternal heaven.  Why
is it that you would not say:  "Also, Jehovah God is a God of Justice.  No
matter what a person does in this life, the prize cannot equate to eternal
reward in heaven."

>	Death and Hades are spoken of as being thrown into the "lake of
>	fire" , Revelation 20:14. One knows that these are symbolic, you
>	can't make death and Hades suffer torment, so the "lake of fire"
>	must symbolise total destruction or being done away with for all 
>	eternity. As confirmed when one looks in context with Revelation 
>	21:4 which mentions that "death will be no more", this will be
>	true because it has been symbolically thrown into the lake of fire.

Of course "Death" and "Hades" don't suffer torment.  The fact that they
are "thrown" into the lake of fire just means that this is where death and
hades will *be*.  For those who spend an eternity in heaven, there will be no
more death and the grave will be no more.  For those who spend an eternity in
hell, eternal death in an eternal grave will be the eternal consequence.  And
according to Rev 20:10, eternal torment will be experienced in that place. 

That "the 'lake of fire' must symbolise total destruction or being done away
with for all eternity" is human reasoning -- an opinion not supported by
scripture.

      Hi Garth,
    
        While admittedly I disagree with JW's in a myriad of areas, I
        found agreeement with much if not all of what Phil said.
    
        The only point I want to make here and now is that you both
        offered _interpretation_ and it is my understanding when looking
        at the whole of the Bible that _your_ ideas are "mere human
        reasoning" and are not "opinions supported by scripture."
    
                                                    Tony

  Hi All,

    Before I reply to Lazarus, let me offer a very tiny portion
    of why I believe as I do.

    We can look at SEVERAL texts regardless of how we believe
    and recognize _tension_.  Some texts seem to fit the alternate
    belief than the one we hold.  We then INTERPRET such a text
    in such a way that harmony is found.  This interpretation is
    a STRETCH; it is simply something that would not be expected
    if that verse stood all on its own (was not compared to the
    rest of scripture).

    To summarize, I have found that the view of eternal consciouss
    torment which I will denote ET, eternal torment (so as not to 
    give a negative impression by calling it 'traditional') has a vast 
    number of stretches - so many more so than the finite consciouss 
    torment view - FT.  And I have also found that the FT view really
    doesn't have very many stretches at all - once several of the
    'thought to be stretches' are referenced to their old testament
    origins.

    In the next couple replies, I will give a couple of BIGTIME stretches 
    should one believe in ET.  But, first I need to once again elaborate 
    on the aion/aionios issue.

    There are several texts that speak of the punishing of the unsaved
    as being 'eternal' or lasting 'for ever and ever.'  Those of the
    ET view quite naturally bring them up for defense (as well they
    should) - UNLESS the Greek was studied a little bit deeper.

    I studied aion/aionios a bit deeper.  I selected 5 texts from the
    OT which were rendered in the KJV as 'for ever'.  Such a text is
    the one where Jonah was in the belly of a fish 'for ever.'  Or 
    there is one which speaks of a person being a slave 'for ever.' 
    I took 5 examples (of which there are several) and reasoned that
    the Greek Old Testament might illuminate on its word that is used.

    The greatest thing that would defend the ET view would be if the 
    Greek word used in the LXX would be some word other than aion/aionios
    and one of the greatest things that would defend the FT view would
    be if the words aion/aionios were in fact used.  Being convicted of
    my belief, I was sure the LXX would bear out what I felt it must; that
    the Greek scholars would use the words aion/aionios.  I did not know
    what they used, but truth would seem to support this.

    So, I got from the Septuagint, the Greek words used.  In EVERY case
    the Greek word was aion or aionios.

    The inescapable conclusion I have reached is that aion/aionios need
    not mean for ever.

    It then follows that to use any aion/aionios text as defense of the
    ET position is incorrect.  The word can mean either or.  It adds 
    NOTHING to telling us how long the torment of the unsaved will last.

    I believe 'aion' is much like the English word 'always.'

    I could say:

      "I will always live in Massachusetts."

    And nobody would reply to me:

      "You mean you are going to live in Massachusetts even after you
       die?!"

    And I could say:

      "God will always be agape."

    And nobody would reply to me:

      "You mean, God will be agape until He dies?!"

    And the reason nobody would be confused is because we would have
    a knowledge of the characteristics of the subject to which the word
    always is describing.  In the first case, it desribes MYSELF and in
    the second  case, it describes God.  And because people know enough
    about me, they know that I am stating that I will always live in
    Massachusetts until I die.  And because people know something of
    the nature of God, they know that the statement is saying God will
    be agape forever into the future - not because the word always
    implies it, but because THE NATURE OF GOD IMPLIES IT.

    I'll continue...
                                                       Tony

  Hi All,

    Continuing from the last reply...

    Thus, virtually every scripture that speaks of the lost being in
    consciouss eternal torment or in torment for ever and ever NEED
    NOT BE SAYING SUCH.

    Those verses are 100% neutral in terms of what they say about the
    duration of time of torment.

    HOWEVER, if the word 'aion/aionios' describes the word LIVING; that
    is a different story.

    If I say:

        "I will always LIVE."

    We know what I am saying.

    Can anyone show me a single scripture that states that the unsaved
    will _always_ live?

    Not even one?????

    You will not find it.

    But, you will find...

    Jude 7
   "Even as Sodom and Gommorah, and the cities about them in like manner,
    giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,

    are SET FORTH for an EXAMPLE,

    suffering the VENGEANCE of ETERNAL [aion] fire."

    
    When one understands the flexibility of the meaning of the word aion/
    aionios and takes Jude 7 just as it reads, there is no stretch with
    the interpretation of Jude 7 with the FT view.

    There is a tremendous stretch with the ET view.  (I think.)

    I'll continue with _stretches_ time permitting.

                                                       Tony

Re: .37  (Tony)

>        The only point I want to make here and now is that you both
>        offered _interpretation_ and it is my understanding when looking
>        at the whole of the Bible that _your_ ideas are "mere human
>        reasoning" and are not "opinions supported by scripture."
    
What "interpretation" did I offer?  It is written that death and hades
would be thrown into the lake of fire.  Therefore I said that this is where
death and hades will be.  Not interpretation.  I said that therefore there
won't be death and hades in heaven where we are going.  Not interpretation.
It is written that "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever".
Therefore I said that those in this lake of fire will experience eternal
torment.

It is no more "interpretation" than you reading the text of this reply and
understanding what it is that I meant by it.  I believe that the God has
communicated the issue as clearly to us in writing as you and I are now
communicating to each other in writing.  The difference is that you and
Phil don't *want* to believe in eternal torment.  (Actually, I don't
either, but I am compelled by God's word to believe what He says.)

      Hi Garth,
    
        I think digging deeper into the shaft of truth would benefit
        all of us.  We all need to look deeper into what aion/aionios
        means and had this been done you most surely would not have 
        offered that 'for ever and ever' verse for support of 'eternal
        time duration.'
    
        Secondly, interpretation (as I see it) was still used for the
        lake of fire can be interpreted to be a lake of DESTRUCTION.
    
        Thus your _interpretation_ is that this lake does not destroy
        death and my _interpretation_ is that it most definitely does
        destroy death.
    
        The lake of fire destroys and if other passages from whence 
        these terms are first used can be used as guides in understanding
        what the lake of fire is, we might better have a handle on what
        the symbolism means.
    
        I have stated several times that my belief is based on what the
        Bible says and not on what I _want_.  An example of my own pursuit
        of truth is the aion/aionios study I carried out which I personally
        find to destroy perhaps 95% of all scriptures in the entire Bible
        which (on the surface) seem to support the eternal consciouss
        torment view.
    
                                                          Tony
    

   Hi Again,

     Now to what I consider to be the biggest stretch, but before
     doing so I must summarize alternate positions in a couple
     very fundamental areas.

  1) The tripartite state of man idea.
     Another possibility than the one discussed here is that many
     of the qualities of man as discussed in scripture ARE NOT THINGS
     THAT CAN BE SLICED UP.

     An example I can give is a light bulb.  Let's pretend that without
     the glass part, there would also be no light (just so as to make
     the analogy fit what I am trying to explain).  Let's also assume
     that without the glass, there would be no heat.

     One might divide a glass bulb into a physical part, a heat part, 
     a luminescent part, and an electricity part.

     But, one CANNOT have heat or light without having THE WHOLE OF THE
     LIGHT BULB.

     I see (for example) the electricity being the life-giving force
     CONFERRED by God for He is the source of all life.  But, I am not
     _just_ that life force.  That light force is 'mingled' (for want of
     a better word) with the physical part (the dust) and that COMBINATION
     gives me the qualities that are sometimes called spirit and soul and
     heart and the mind and the reins...

     I believe, for example, that without a brain (a physical part) there
     is no conscioussness and yet the brain absolutely requires another
     component - the breath of life.

     I can expound on this later, but for example, when the Bible refers
     to soul it can mean different things at different times.  Clearly in
     the creation account, "man became a living soul", it speaks of the
     total man - all that he is.  Yet, in Matthew, soul is demarcated from
     body.  I just believe that soul can refer to different qualities or
     aspects of man that man is when breath and dust are combined and that
     man is not when they are separate.

     In other words, these descriptors often look at aspects of man which
     cannot divide him into separate components.  Man is (always) the 
     collective "breath of God" and "dust of the earth" and this combination
     has several aspects all of which require the 'total man.'

  2) The other thing is the idea of time.

     Isaiah 66:22,23
     For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall
     remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name
     remain.
     And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from
     one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith
     the Lord.

     I believe this is apocalyptic (at the time of the new heaven and the
     new earth) and taking place after the eventual "time is no more" 
     passage refers to.  And this passage speaks of terms that refer to 
     passage of time.  As I said, the millenium is a passage of time.  
     So is time referred to when Jesus says "I am the Alpha and Omega, 
     the beginning and the end."  Again, passage of time.  And so with
     "new moon to new moon" and "sabbath to sabbath."  These are clearly
     passage of time references.

     I believe simply that the "time is no more" refers to a time when
     PROPHETIC TIME IS NO MORE.  The 1260 days are in the past as are the
     2300, 3.5 weeks, 70 weeks, 1290 days, etc. etc.  It refers to a time
     when the stage is set, all is in readiness for the return of Christ.

     And I can understand if some disagree with me, but let me just say
     that Rev is highly symbolic and please understand that I do not take
     the idea of time itself being no more with any significance.  It is
     so based on human speculation.  To speculate that and to explain eternal
     (that's time too, ain't it?) torment partially on the basis of interpreting
     one single passage as meaning there is no time.  No.  I believe there
     is time.  Another explanation I see as possible is that time has lost
     one of its biggest significance that being that death is no more.  There
     are no ends no tommorows where something sad or awful can take place.
     Time loses tremendous consequence from certain standpoints and in that
     way "is no more."

     So as I proceed, I just want it understood that some of my basis is
     very different views on "the tripartite man" and on the idea of what
     the scripture "time is no more" means and thus on both of these how 
     they relate to the topic at hand.

     I guess I'll save the 'stretches' for a later reply!  (Lunch is almost
     over.)

                                                       God Bless,

                                                       Tony

    Anyone interested in hearing what Bob Phillips (Times Square Church)
    has to say on heaven and hell?  Send me your snail mail or home mail
    address and I'll send you a copy of the tape.  It's a message he gave
    recently at Times Square Church in NYC.
    
    Dave

	Revelation 20:10

	"And the Devil who decieved them was cast into the lake of fire and 
brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophets were; AND THEY SHALL BE
TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER."

	I asked the question about the eternal fate of Satan to remove the
discussion from an emotional one (i.e. a loving God wouldn't hurt us) to a
more rational one concerning something that we could probably all agree on,
that is, God will righteously deal with His enemy Satan and he will get
exactly what he deserves for his deceiving so many people and dragging them
to hell with him.But we didn't agree after all, not even on this point.

	Apparently from what I gather from Phil's note, the Jehovah Witnesses
don't believe Satan suffers eternal torments forever and ever and explains
the directness of Rev 20:10 (CAPS ABOVE) as a metaphor.  And Tony, whom
I assume adequately represents Seventh Day Adventist views, agrees with this.

	Phil, Tony, why do you think this is a metaphor and if it is a metaphor,
what is it a metaphor of?

	I think Garth hit the nail on the head. (.40 "The difference is that 
you and Phil don't *want* to believe in eternal torment.") and therefore I 
would add, that you read the Bible through a certain colored pair of glasses. 
Not doubting your sincerity, by the way, but just a normal human response.
Unfortunately in this case your particular views conflict with Revelation 
20:10. 

Ace

            <<< Note 94.44 by LEDS::LOPEZ "A River.. proceeding!" >>>


>	Revelation 20:10
>
>	"And the Devil who decieved them was cast into the lake of fire and 
>brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophets were; AND THEY SHALL BE
>TORMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER."

Well - your note wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to bring up an
interesting point.

In Rev 20:10, it says Satan will be tormented day and night forever and
ever. OK, I'll buy that.

A question: Satan was an angel... Is it possible for God to destroy an 
            angel? (Perhaps that could be another note topic)

But, how about Rev 20:14-15 (niv)

"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of
fire is the SECOND DEATH. If anyone's name was not found written in the
book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Now, for people, the lake of fire is the second death. Does it say people
will be tormented forever and ever? No, it doesn't. It says it will be 
the second death. DEATH. As in DEAD. 

Or, do some of you view this SECOND DEATH as a metaphore for something else?

What do you consider the SECOND DEATH to be? (based from scripture)

In Him,
Scott

    As I mentioned in an earlier note, "death" as we think of it and
    "death" as God thinks are not always the same.  For example: "But of
    the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:
    for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen.
    2:17)  Would _you_ say that they died on the day that they ate of it? 
    Either God was kidding (not a conclusion that I recommend), or they did
    die (not physically at that point, of course, though physical death
    also followed as a result).  I believe the second death is an eternal
    separation (without recourse) from God.
    
    Mark L.

English translation of the word Death:

1.  The act of dying; termination of life
2.  The state of being dead.
3.  Often _Death. A personification of the destroyer of life, usually 
      represented as a skeleton holding a scythe
4.  Termination or extinction: [as in ] "the death of imperialism"
5.  The cause of dying
6.  A manner of dying: [as in] "a heroes death"
7.  a. bloodshed or murder.  b. execution
8.  Civil death.
9.  In Christian Science, the product of human belief of life in matter.
- Idiom. to death. To an intolerable degree: [as in] worried to death

American Heritage Dictionary

Re: Scott

>>"Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of
>>fire is the SECOND DEATH. If anyone's name was not found written in the
>>book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

>>Now, for people, the lake of fire is the second death. Does it say people
>>will be tormented forever and ever? No, it doesn't. It says it will be 
>>the second death. DEATH. As in DEAD. 

Hi Scott:

I concur 100% with Marks last reply and was going to mention it myself.  To 
get to the beginning of this whole matter, we need to determine what the word,
"Die" means in Genesis where Adam and Eve are told they shall surely die.
I believe this to mean spiritual death or separation from God.  Paul told us
in Corinthians I believe, "For in Adam all die so in Christ all shall be made
alive."  The context of this verse infers spiritual death and life, not the
annihilation of the flesh or the soul.

Around reply .6 or so, I mentioned the passage where Christ is separating the
goats from the lambs.  To the goats he said, "Depart from me ye cursed to the
place of everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."  To me this 
implies the second death (eternal separation) is coequal to the eternal 
judgement which was initially prepared for the devil and his angels.

In Christ,

-Jack

            <<< Note 94.46 by CHTP00::CHTP05::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>

>    As I mentioned in an earlier note, "death" as we think of it and
>    "death" as God thinks are not always the same.  For example: "But of
>    the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it:
>    for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen.
>    2:17)  Would _you_ say that they died on the day that they ate of it? 

From NIV translation:  "but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of
good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

The reason for the NIV translation was to make sure I understood the KJV
you quoted (it must be the KLV with all those "thou shalt"'s!)

God wasn't saying on the very moment they eat the fruit they would die,
neither was he saying on the same day they would die. He was simply saying
"you will surely die".

>    Either God was kidding (not a conclusion that I recommend), or they did
>    die (not physically at that point, of course, though physical death
>    also followed as a result).  I believe the second death is an eternal
>    separation (without recourse) from God.
    
Here you agree that physically they died as a result, and above I proved 
that God did not specify WHEN they would die, simply that they would die.
So, your human reasoning of "they did die, but not physically" is in error.
That also takes away from your last sentence on what you believe the second
death to be. 

However, what other scriptural references do you have to support your belief
that the second death is "eternal separation (without recourse) from God"?

If the Bible is so easy to understand, as we claim in this conference, 
then why can't "second death" simply mean what it says?

In Him,
Scott

                      <<< Note 94.48 by MSBCS::JMARTIN >>>

>I concur 100% with Marks last reply and was going to mention it myself.  To 
>get to the beginning of this whole matter, we need to determine what the word,
>"Die" means in Genesis where Adam and Eve are told they shall surely die.
>I believe this to mean spiritual death or separation from God.  Paul told us
>in Corinthians I believe, "For in Adam all die so in Christ all shall be made
>alive."  The context of this verse infers spiritual death and life, not the
>annihilation of the flesh or the soul.

1 Cor 15:21-22:

"For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes
also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made
alive."

I disagree.  I read this and I simply see Paul connecting the physical death
that came through Adam and the spiritual resurrection (of the physically dead)
that comes through Christ.

>Around reply .6 or so, I mentioned the passage where Christ is separating the
>goats from the lambs.  To the goats he said, "Depart from me ye cursed to the
>place of everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."  To me this 
>implies the second death (eternal separation) is coequal to the eternal 
>judgement which was initially prepared for the devil and his angels.

Yes, I also agree it is an "eternal separation" but what is this "eternal
separation"???  Some say eternal torment... But, why couldn't it be 
eternally destroyed?  I agree that there are places which describe an eternal
torment for "the devil and his angles", however, I've never seen references
that say it will be eternal torment for humans as well. Rather, I've seen
references to total destruction (a second death) for humans.

In Him,
Scott

Scott:

==Yes, I also agree it is an "eternal separation" but what is this "eternal
==separation"???  Some say eternal torment... But, why couldn't it be 
==eternally destroyed?  I agree that there are places which describe an eternal
==torment for "the devil and his angles", however, I've never seen references
==that say it will be eternal torment for humans as well. Rather, I've seen
==references to total destruction (a second death) for humans.


==>Around reply .6 or so, I mentioned the passage where Christ is separating the
==>goats from the lambs.  To the goats he said, "Depart from me ye cursed to the
==>place of everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."  To me this 
==>implies the second death (eternal separation) is coequal to the eternal 
==>judgement which was initially prepared for the devil and his angels.

Basically I just answered your question by flip floppin what you wrote in .50.
Look at what judgement Christ gave the goats here.  The goats incurred the
same exact wrath and judgement as the devil and his angels.  You state above 
that you agree there are places describing an eternal torment for the devil and
his angels.

Looks to me like you just answered your own question.

God Speed,

Jack

    I have not read this note string  but I assume it is another round of
    eternal damnation vs total destruction for the unsaved, perhaps with a
    little "How could a loving God ever do that?" type of thing.
    
      Am I close?
    
     The thing that really stands out for me is that whether damned or
    destroyed those who do not know and love Jesus as Saviour and Lord will
    be eternally seperated from God. What does anything else matter in
    comparison to the magnitude of this loss? Even if I had to endure fire
    forever, I could do it if I could still be with Jesus in those flames.
    Even if I went to Heaven in all its wonders, if Jesus wasn't there it
    would be Hell.
    
      What does it matter what befalls the lost as far as technique of
    judgement and punishment goes? What matters is that they will be lost.
    And they do not have to be!!!
    
     Instead of worrying about who is right about something God alone can
    decide, let's do what we can to keep people from finding out firsthand
    what that judgement shall be like.
    
    Gil
    
    ps 
    
     This is not meant to offend anyone but only to encourage us all to
    reach out to those who are lost.

    Hi Gil:
    
    Thanks for your insight and I agree with you on this.  Actually, I
    think deep down most all of us do (don't mean to speak for everybody
    else).  About twenty replies back, somebody mentioned this issue as
    more or less being close to their heart.  In other words, true what
    only matters is the fact that separation from God is the true hell;
    however, there are some that have a passion to correct what they feel
    is misinterpreted so in a sense this string is spurring us on to
    greater learning.  As MM indicated in past strings, the important thing
    in these cases is to climb over doctrine to get to the truth and accept
    it!!
    
    God Speed,
    
    Jack

    By the way, Jesus said "Woe unto those who hurt my little ones, for it
    would have been better if you were never born!!"
    
    If I were standing in judgement and God gave me the choice of eternity
    in a lake of fire or annihilation of the soul and body, I would
    certainly pick the latter of the two.  I was removing a hot lightbulb
    last night..not a pleasant experience at all!!!
    
    -Jack

    Just a little more food for thought:
    
    "And you hath he quickened [made alive], who were dead in trespasses
    and sins;" (Eph. 2:1)  Were you dead before you believed?  I believe
    that Adam and Eve's "sure death" is as sure as it was that you were
    dead in trespasses and sins.
    
    Mark L.

                      <<< Note 94.51 by MSBCS::JMARTIN >>>
                   -< You Answered the Question Yourself!! >-

>Scott:
>
>>Yes, I also agree it is an "eternal separation" but what is this "eternal
>>separation"???  Some say eternal torment... But, why couldn't it be 
>>eternally destroyed?  I agree that there are places which describe an eternal
>>torment for "the devil and his angles", however, I've never seen references
>>that say it will be eternal torment for humans as well. Rather, I've seen
>>references to total destruction (a second death) for humans.
>
>
>>>Around reply .6 or so, I mentioned the passage where Christ is separating the
>>>goats from the lambs.  To the goats he said, "Depart from me ye cursed to the
>>>place of everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."  To me this 
>>>implies the second death (eternal separation) is coequal to the eternal 
>>>judgement which was initially prepared for the devil and his angels.
>
>Basically I just answered your question by flip floppin what you wrote in .50.
>Look at what judgement Christ gave the goats here.  The goats incurred the
>same exact wrath and judgement as the devil and his angels.  You state above 
>that you agree there are places describing an eternal torment for the devil and
>his angels.
>
>Looks to me like you just answered your own question.

No, I didn't. 

Yes, I agree that the Bible references to eternal torment for
the devil and his angels. BUT, the quote from the Bible above where Christ
said "Depart from me ye cursed to the place of everlasting fire prepared 
for the devil and his angels" DOESN'T say anything about what will happen
WHEN HUMANS GO THERE!  Yes, humans will enter the place prepared for Satan.
But, what makes you think the same is in store for us? We are only human,
we are not angels. Satan is a (fallen) angel. What might be eternal torment
for him might destroy us... We are not and never will be angels... All 
references I've seen regarding the lake of fire to Satan is eternal torment.
All references I've seen regarding the lake of fire to humans is "second
death"...  If it's spelled out so clearly that Satan will be in eternal
torment, then why is it that when humans enter the lake of fire, it's called
"the second death"...  Perhaps it's because the punishment for Satan and
for us is different???  Please, so me scripture where it SAYS the punishment
for us is the same as Satans... 

I agree we go to the same place, but I don't agree the punishment is the same.
(but, I am open to the idea... afterall I did believe that once...)

In Him,
Scott 

Re: .38  (Tony Barbieri)

Do you believe in eternal reward in heaven?

Given your "Aion/Aionios" discussion, I would like to see you provide 
biblical support for anyone obtaining an eternal reward in heaven or
living forever there.

Do you believe in eternal reward in heaven?  If so, what is your apology?

RE.57  Scott,

> DOESN'T say anything about what will happen WHEN HUMANS GO THERE!

	Okay, now that we've agreed that the Bible clearly states that the
Satan and his angels suffer eternal torment in the lake of fire, let's 
examine the same verse and see if we could agree just a little bit more..

	Revelation 20:10
	"And the Devil who decieved them was cast into the lake of fire and 
brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and THEY shall be
TORMENTED day and night FOREVER and EVER...

	Who is THEY who shall be tormented forever and ever? The "THEY" is
the Devil, his angels, and THE BEAST and the FALSE PROPHET. The beast and
the false prophet are titles for Antichrist and his wonder working false buddy.
The Antichrist we know is human and so is his lying friend the false prophet.

	So here is at least two examples of *humans* who are cast into the
lake of fire and suffer the same eternal torment as the Devil and his angels.

	
Ace

	

    Good point Ace except isn't the antichrist really incernated into what
    appears as human existence?  Afterall, Jesus was man, granted, but He
    also had all the attributes of God.
    
    Scott, now I understand your angle on this issue.  Without really
    looking into scripture, two things come to mind; that being Jesus
    stated to the pharisees it will be more tolerable for Sodom and
    Gomorrah on the day of judgement than it will be for you.  Why would
    Jesus make a distinction if the end result is the same as you stated?
    I also think of the parables in Matthew where Jesus ends them by using
    the infamous, "weeping and gnashing of teeth" line.  This line is
    always used in context of speaking of an unsaved person, e.g. the man
    at the wedding not properly dressed, the woman grinding, the five
    virgins, etc.  I don't believe he was referring to demons and to me,
    weeping and gnashing of teeth implies sorrow and pain.
    
    God Speed,
    
    Jack

            <<< Note 94.59 by LEDS::LOPEZ "A River.. proceeding!" >>>
                  -< 2 humans who suffer eternal torment... >-


>	Revelation 20:10
>	"And the Devil who decieved them was cast into the lake of fire and 
>brimstone, where also the beast and the false prophet were; and THEY shall be
>TORMENTED day and night FOREVER and EVER...
>
>	Who is THEY who shall be tormented forever and ever? The "THEY" is
>the Devil, his angels, and THE BEAST and the FALSE PROPHET. The beast and
>the false prophet are titles for Antichrist and his wonder working false buddy.
>The Antichrist we know is human and so is his lying friend the false prophet.
>
>	So here is at least two examples of *humans* who are cast into the
>lake of fire and suffer the same eternal torment as the Devil and his angels.

Good point... I'm thinking on it. But I also think about Matthew 10:28 as
well... which says "...the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

I can't argue your point, because I don't wanna start to rationalize to fit
what I think... (for example, I could speculate "the beast and prophet
might not really be humans" or something else... but I won't do that...)

So - I'm stuck. I see your point, but I also don't agree with it... but,
I also don't disagree with it! :)

I can't make these 2 verses (Mat 10:28, Rev 20:10) fit together - yet - because
I don't buy that "destroy" to God means eternal torment... any other examples
of God destroying something when it wasn't "destroyed" as we understand 
destroy???  

Maybe whoever it was in some previous note is right... Who cares what
happens to them - the point is that they are lost. If they are in eternal
torment or destroyed, does it make a difference?

oh well - I have to think about this more.

In Him,
Scott

                      <<< Note 94.60 by MSBCS::JMARTIN >>>

>    Good point Ace except isn't the antichrist really incernated into what
>    appears as human existence?  Afterall, Jesus was man, granted, but He
>    also had all the attributes of God.

I thought about this as an argument, but is there scripture to support
this view? I dunno... that's why I didn't want to use this type of argument.
I'm trying not to rely on human reasoning.
    
>    Scott, now I understand your angle on this issue.  Without really
>    looking into scripture, two things come to mind; that being Jesus
>    stated to the pharisees it will be more tolerable for Sodom and
>    Gomorrah on the day of judgement than it will be for you.  Why would
>    Jesus make a distinction if the end result is the same as you stated?
>    I also think of the parables in Matthew where Jesus ends them by using
>    the infamous, "weeping and gnashing of teeth" line.  This line is
>    always used in context of speaking of an unsaved person, e.g. the man
>    at the wedding not properly dressed, the woman grinding, the five
>    virgins, etc.  I don't believe he was referring to demons and to me,
>    weeping and gnashing of teeth implies sorrow and pain.
    
Well - If I was lost, and died, then relaized I was wrong - I think I'd
feel a great sorrow and pain too... I think when the lost ones realize 
they are lost, they will feel very tormented for the rest of their existance.
Now, how long that existance is (eternety or a finite length of time), I'm
not sure of...  But I do think the lost will be in torment... At least I 
would be.

In Him,
Scott

    I am not trying to re-open debate, but a scripture brought up in
    another note reminded me of this one, and I thought it might help in
    the consideration at hand.  I agree, the overriding issue is to seek to
    prevent ones from coming to such a destiny.  But also, I believe that
    a clear understanding of God's word is important, and that by sharing
    in this way, we help one another.
    
         And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice,
         If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his
         mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of
         the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without
         mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
         tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy
         angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of
         their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have
         no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image,
         and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Rev. 14:9-11)
    
    Mark L.

    Re: .44
    
    Hi Ace!,
    
    Jonah 2:6
    I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her 
    bars was about me FOREVER: yet hast thou brought up my life from
    corruption, O Lord my God.
    
    This speaks of an event which was of FINITE time duration.  Was it
    not?
    
    There are several like it.
    
    AND, the Greek scholars who translated the Hebrew OT into the Greek
    Septuagint (LXX) saw fit to use the selfsame Greek word in the Jonah
    verse (and several other OT verses) as was used in Rev 20:10 - that
    being aion or aionios.
    
    So Ace, if Jonah wasn't compassed about by the earth forever into the
    future AND if the very same Greek word is used in Jonah as in Rev 
    20:10, how can you NECESSITATE that Rev 20:10 speaks of infinite time
    to the future?  What of Jude 7 which God set forth as an example of
    ETERNAL punishment???
    
    I acknowledge that the Greek phrase that is rendered 'for ever and
    ever' (although - and this is important - the word used is aion or
    aionios) is different than that rendered 'for ever' and I see two 
    possible reasons why.  One, emphasis.  Two, a different meaning that
    being that the phrase suddenly does what aion otherwise never has
    the 'power' to do - require that it is speaking of eternal time to the
    future.
    
    I believe it speaks of EMPHASIS because of my comparison with Jude 7
    as well as other texts which more pointedly describe the state of
    man as an example "He who has the Son has life."
    
    So Ace, you're reply does nothing more than cement my own convictions
    because my intensive study of the Greek words aion/aionios COUPLED with
    my personal assessment that defenders of the ET view base their defense
    ~95% on texts which are entirely neutral.  Thus the vast brunt of the
    scripture used to defend the ET view is no defense whatsoever.
    
    This is exactly what you did.  You cited Rev 20:10 and based your view
    on that text.  I already showed in my two aion/aionios replies that
    texts which use these words are no proof whatsoever.
    
    Do you see what I'm saying?  Have you studied the flexibility of shades
    of meaning of the words aion/aionios???
    
    Is there a disconnect?  Do you not see that the word is much more
    flexible than always meaning 'eternal time to the future'???
    
    Just as in the Jonah verse, the Jude 7 verse, and SEVERAL other
    verses, aion/aionios simply does not mean for ever.
    
    Finally, I disagree a lot with Scott here.  Satan will end up destroyed.  
    And Rev 20:10 (when aion is better understood) offers NO SUPPORT in
    saying otherwise.
    
                                                   Tony

Re: .64  (Tony Barbieri)
    
>    Jonah 2:6
>    I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her 
>    bars was about me FOREVER: yet hast thou brought up my life from
>    corruption, O Lord my God.
>
>    This speaks of an event which was of FINITE time duration.  Was it
>    not?
    
Try imagining yourself inside the belly of a fish with no foreseeable way to
*ever* get out.  And there was no way out.  The natural verdict was "forever". 
But God "commanded" the fish (verse 10) and it "vomited Jonah onto dry land",
3 days and 3 nights later.

>    So Ace, if Jonah wasn't compassed about by the earth forever into the
>    future AND if the very same Greek word is used in Jonah as in Rev 
>    20:10, how can you NECESSITATE that Rev 20:10 speaks of infinite time
>    to the future?  What of Jude 7 which God set forth as an example of
>    ETERNAL punishment???
    
And so Tony, you have not answered the dilemma I presented you, either.  Do
you believe in eternal reward in heaven forever?  Do you believe that to God
be the honor and power and glory forever?  Do you believe that Jesus Christ
is a priest forever?  Do you believe that he who "eats this bread" will live
forever?  Do you believe that the word of God endures forever?

>    Is there a disconnect?  Do you not see that the word is much more
>    flexible than always meaning 'eternal time to the future'???

(???)

    Tony,
    
    I haven't been following this whole string either, but you and I have
    discussed this in the past.
    
    Please allow me to ask a few simple, pointed questions
    
    1) What do you think of Gil's comments that in reality, it matters
    little whether the unsaved are eternally tormented or eternally
    vaporized and non-existant, but that what matters is that they are
    eternally out of God's presence?
    
    2) Why is it so important to you to prove this point that you've been
    trying to prove in this and other versions of the conference?  (I'm
    asking that not as some sort of challenge, but as a question to try to
    understand the root of why this argument is so important to you).
    
    3) *IF* you are wrong in your understanding, and *IF* the unsaved are
    tormented forever in burning flames and *IF* the unsaved spend a
    concious eternity weeping, groaning, and gnashing their teeth - does
    that make God a God *not* of agape in your view?
    
    4) *IF* God told you on the Day of Judgement that all the unsaved would
    indeed endure eternal suffering, would you refuse eternal life?
    
    
    Steve

      Re: .58
    
      Hi Garth,
    
        By the way, the tenor of the replies is that you were the 
        sole person to 'pick up' what I tried to say about aion/aionios.
    
        So, what would be my basis?
    
        Let me continue with the assumption that aion/aionios is very
        similar to the English ALWAYS.
    
        Again, look back to the examples I gave and the suggestion that
        the nature of the word being described CARRIES THE WEIGHT.  
    
        Oh, I'll just do it again!!!
    
        If I said:
    
        "I will always drive a Ford."  
    
        One would not conclude that I am suggesting that for eternal time
        in the future, I will drive a Ford.  One might not even suggest
        that I will drive a Ford until I die.  One might suggest that I
        will drive a Ford until the time I no longer drive.
    
        If someone said:
    
        "God will always be love."
    
        Anyone would know that it is being said that for time eternal to
        the future, God will be love.  Why?  Because of the word always???
        NO, because of the nature of the subject which always describes.
    
        If you recall Garth, I also mentioned one exception...if the word
        aion/aionios described LIFE.
    
        If someone said:
    
        "Tony will always LIVE."
    
        Then it is probably taken that it is saying I will be around for 
        eternal time to the future.
    
        So, Garth, based on this, I would look for the words aion/aionios
        to describe LIFE.
    
        Such as 
    
        For God so loved the world that whosoever ever believeth in Him
        would not perish but have ETERNAL ***LIFE***."
    
        There it is Garth.
    
        As well as Jesus saying "He who has the Son has life" or "this
        is LIFE ETERNAL..."
    
        Is that not sufficient proof??
    
        Can you find me a single text which says the unsaved have LIFE
        ETERNAL?
    
        Just one????
    
        You will not find it.
    
        But, if we are honest with the flexibility of meaning of the words
        aion/aionios, we will find tremendous weight in Jude 7 which says
        that Sodon was set forth as an example of the vengeance of ETERNAL
        FIRE.
    
        Can you see why I give so little credibility to the eternal
        consciouss torment view when the substantial offered proof of it
        are texts whose basis of defense is an incomplete knowledge of
        the meaning of the original Greek?
    
        And that when that knowledge is found, they are no support 
        whatsoever???
                                      
                                                     Tony

>        By the way, the tenor of the replies is that you were the 
>        sole person to 'pick up' what I tried to say about aion/aionios.

Don't let one reply fool you into thinking that Garth is the only
person to pick up on it, and ask questions (which I think you've ducked).

I'm out of the lion's share of this discussion, but still around.
I've already had this debate so I'm letting others (so I don't seem
to be the sole person, either).  ;-)

>        "God will always be love."
>    
>        Anyone would know that it is being said that for time eternal to
>        the future, God will be love.  Why?  Because of the word always???
>        NO, because of the nature of the subject which always describes.

So, using the nature or the subject, I see hell as being eternal (which smoke
rises forever and ever.  And if it is the nature of man, Garth says that the
Bible says man will live ternally in heaven in reward so his nature is eternal,
yes?

Mark

      Hi Garth,
    
        Why not take a step back, look up for ever in the OT and see
        if you have a similar explanation for every one of those texts
        as you do for Jonah?
    
      Hi Mark,
    
        Hmmmmm.  I sure see another possibility that squares with things
        like "the dead know not everything" and like the Bible never 
        saying that the unsaved will live for ever and like the verse which
        says of God "who only hath immortality."
    
        And that would be that God is life, Jesus is God, He is a gift to
        us (John 3:16), and thus life is a GIFT to us.
    
        "This is life eternal..."  "He who has the Son has life."
    
        Mark, howdja miss this other possibility, i.e. that life is a gift
        from God.  
    
        Are you trying too hard not to see?  ;-)
    
                                                      Tony

>        Hmmmmm.  I sure see another possibility that squares with things
>        like "the dead know not everything" and like the Bible never 

I wonder, Tony, how you can apply a liberal meaning to "forever"
yet a literal meaing to "the dead know nothing"?  Hmmmm?

>        Are you trying too hard not to see?  ;-)

Back at ya.

Mark

      Hi Mark,
    
        No, not a liberal meaning.  A more accurate one.
    
        Yes, I believe the KJV translators erred.
    
        If I said that I will live in Massachusetts always,
        I would hope that it would be properly understood
        not on the basis of a liberal usage of the word
        'always' but rather on the basis of a more accurate
        understanding of just what the word 'always' means.
    
        So, yes, I do believe the KJV erred and so I acknowledge
        appearing 'liberal' on the basis of what the english
        says _but_ simply more accurate on the basis of what
        aion/aionios really means.
    
        Have a real blessed Easter weekend Mark and the rest
        of ya.
    
                                           Tony

Accurate?  We disagree, no?

Have a good Easter, too, Tony.

    Re: .72
    
    Mark,
    
      How can you possibly disagree when the LXX provides so many
      examples revealing a fuller picture of the definition of the
      word aion?
    
      I don't understand!
    
      If you really see aion as not more accurately defined than 
      'for ever into the future', well, I don't know what to say!
    
      You are invited to learn otherwise.  Just get the Septuagint
      rendering of the English eternal in several OT texts.
    
                                                Tony

      Hi Andy,
    
        I just want to say that I checked over the Ezekiel text on
        Satan and I agree with you.
    
        That text has nowhere near the 'power' I thought it had in
        showing that Satan would eventually be destroyed.  
    
        Not that I don't believe there isn't sufficient basis elsewhere!
    
        But, I hope we can all acknowledge where we've erred on specific
        items irregardless of our overall position.
    
                                                      Tony

    Re .73
    
      Actually I meant to say, look up 'for ever.'
    
      I hope the scholarly work of the LXX sheds light for you Mark.
      It has much to say.  It was their own language.  It was good
      enough to be quoted verbatim in the NT.  Song of Solomon is
      quoted from the LXX (not the Hebrew) in Rev 3.
    
      The Greek scholars knew their own language.  I urge you to find
      from their scholastic work a truer definition of the words 
      aion/aionios.
    
      But, its up to you.
    
                                                   Tony

re .36

Garth,

One thing for sure is that, God being a God of Justice is not mere "human 
reasoning", the Bible states that he is so. Deuteronomy 32:4 RSV reads "The 
Rock, his work is perfect; all his ways are justice."

; Who are you to say what God can and cannot do? , Who are you to say what God 
; will and will not do?

Is not the good news message an indication of what God will do? as he not
assigned humans to preach the good news? With this in mind it is logical
that through some means he would communicate to such ones his will and
purposes. Can we agree that this for us is the Bible?.

;Stick with what God has said he will and will not do.

Agreed this should be a discussion based on Scripture, so lets endeavour to
do this.

;This is also logically inconsistent with your belief in an eternal heaven.  Why
;is it that you would not say:  "Also, Jehovah God is a God of Justice.  No
;matter what a person does in this life, the prize cannot equate to eternal
;reward in heaven."

Are you saying that all of God's ways are not just ones?. The Bible
has alot to say about the "prize of everlasting life" and how it is meted
out, even with God's sense of justice being fulfilled.  As I said earlier,
Jehovah is a just God but he also has a far more superlative quality that
he uses along with this quality of justice. That is love, as you know it is
mentioned in John 3:16, through his compassion he has given sinful mankind
the hope of everlasting life. However, God also had to fulfill his sense
of justice. Hence we read in Matthew 20:28 RSV "Son of man came....to give
his life as a ransom for many." and as Paul put it "you were bought with a
price." 1 Corinthians 6:20 RSV, compare Hewbrews 9:24-28.

Whatever a person does , the prize cannot equate to eternal life. That is
why mankind needs a redeemer, and it is because of the grace from God that he 
supplied one. Now in the New World Translation grace is rendered "undeserved 
kindness", hence one can never ever repay God for the love he has shown mankind. 
However one can show appreciation by talking to others about his fine qualities.

But you might continue to say that it is wrong to reason such things as "now 
no matter what a person does in this life, the penalty cannot equate to eternal 
punishment in hellfire." But is it really when we look at Scriptures such
as Romans 1:20,21 , it would be inexcuseable to deny,reason or meditate on the 
fine qualities displayed by God in creating the earth and the things in it 
would it not?.

James 3:17 RSV is rendered "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then
peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, without 
uncertainity or insincerity." Seeing that the wisdom from above is "open
to reason" in your mind, what quality does God display along with justice
in condemning ungodly mankind to torment in a fiery hell? 

You might say as Paul said "'For who has the mind of the Lord so as to instruct
him?'" however in 1 Corinthians 2:16 RSV he continues "But we have the mind
of Christ." Would not Jesus act in line with his teachings? for not doing
so would be hypocritical like the Pharisees. In Luke 6:27 Jesus teaches us to 
"love YOUR enemies" , how can God then do the opposite by tormenting his 
enemies seeing them suffer for all eternity. Again what sort of godly quality
is the hellfire teaching highlighting, for the only ones that the Bible 
identifies as taking delight in seeing mankind suffer is Satan and his demons,
as seen in the many Biblical accounts of demon possession. 

so to recap, it is right to reason on God's fine qualities in the things
that he has done for all mankind. Therefore it would be also right to reason 
on such things as the "hellfire teaching", for John 17:3 indicates that 
"everlasting life" is dependent on knowing God which would include the
qualities he displays. The important thing to learn is not what Jehovah God
does, but why he does it. Eg why has he given mankind a redeemer? 

More later regarding Revelation 20:10.

Phil. 

    Tony,
    
     I think you missed the point of my note umpteen replies ago. I simply
    meant to illustrate that I think it more important to do our best to
    reach the unsaved with the Gospel than to worry about what will happen
    to them if we don't.
    
     I think you may have read more things implicit in that note then were
    actually meant. I will not be truly satisfied with *anything* in this
    life. Satisfaction will only come when I am in the presence of the Lord
    forever.
    
     Gil

  Hi All,

    Some more descriptive information showing us how Greek scholars
    used their own language, i.e. how they saw fit to use aion/aionios.

    This information was asked for in a topic I opened up in an earlier
    version and Mark Sorensen provided me with the LXX (Septuagint) 
    information.

    Exodus 21:6
    Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring
    him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his
    ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him _for ever_.

        Heb. 5703, Gk. aiona



    2 Kings 5:27
    The leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto thee, and unto thy
    seed _for ever_.  And he went out from his presence a leper as white
    as snow. 

        Heb. 5769, Gk. aiona



    1 Chronicles 28:4
    Howbeit the Lord God of Israel chose me before all the house of my 
    father to be king over Israel _for ever_: for he hath chosen Judah
    to be the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father;
    and among the sons of my father he liked me to make me king over
    all Israel.

        Heb. 5769, Gk. aiona



    1 Chronicles 23;13
    The sons of Amram; Aaron and Moses: and Aaron was separated, that he
    should sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons _for ever_, to
    burn incense before the Lord, to minister unto him, and to bless in
    his name for ever.

        Heb. 5769, Gk. aionos



    Jonah 2:6 [2:7 in LXX]
    I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth within her bars
    was about me _for ever_: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption,
    O Lord my God.

        Heb. 5769, Gk. aionioi, Eng. "everlasting"


    So we see the Greek scholars using aion (or some form of it) to describe
    events of obviously finite time duration and we thus conclude that it
    is not inaccurate (or a stretch) to render aion as such.

    We wonder how it applies to the eternal consciouss torment of the unsaved
    and we look for what God has given us FOR AN EXAMPLE.

    Jude 7
    Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner,
    giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,

    are set forth for an example,

    suffering the vengeance of eternal [aion] fire.


                                                  Tony

    re: .81
    
    correction: we wonder how it applies to the consciouss torment
                of the unsaved not to the eternal consciouss torment.
                (Whether or not eternal is what we wonder.)
    
    Hi Gil,
    
      Thanks.  If I understand you right, you are saying that this
      is important and other things are _more_ important.
    
                                                   Tony

Re: .44 (Ace) & .36 (Garth)

	The "lake of fire" mentioned in Revelation is symbollic. In a previous
	reply I mentioned that for God to torment Satan forever would mean
	that he would have to keep him alive for this purpose. Life is
	a gift and not a punishment. Further the Bible tells us that the
	payment for sin is death and the dead don't feel pain (Romans 
	6:23 ; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10).

	The Apostle Peter tells us that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah set
	the pattern for ungodly people, 2 Peter 2:6 RSV reads "if by turning
	the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to 
	extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly;"

	The Scripture in Jude 7 was all mentioned in Tony's reply .81.
	What is this example?, for similarly to Satan being flung into
	the "lake of fire" the cities were to undergo "a punishment 
	of eternal fire". We can see, or put it another way not see, 
	the results today. The cities having been blotted out along with
	their inhabitants, as Peter put it "he condemned them to extinction".
	The cities do not continue to burn in a literal way but were 
	reduced to a pile of ashes, and today no one really knows exactly
	where there location was.
	
	As this is the pattern for ungodly people, then Satan and his demons
	will receive the same condemnation. They will be blotted out.

	In Revelation 20:10 the Greek word used for "tormented" is basani'zo,
	does anybody know it's meaning?. 

	Phil.	



	

Re: .67  (Tony)
    
Regarding the "eternal reward" vs. "eternal torment" discussion:

>        Is that not sufficient proof??
    
Your "proof" of good things eternal can be equally applied to the proof of
bad things eternal.

Mark Metcalfe expressed it aptly in 94.68, which is worth repeating:

>So, using the nature or the subject, I see hell as being eternal (which smoke
>rises forever and ever.  And if it is the nature of man, Garth says that the
>Bible says man will live ternally in heaven in reward so his nature is eternal,
>yes?

If man can live eternally in heaven in reward, then man can live eternally
in hell in punishment.

To answer your other question,

>        Can you find me a single text which says the unsaved have LIFE
>        ETERNAL?
    
No, they have death eternal, in the lake of fire, where death will always be,
and there they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

Re: .79  (Phil)

To answer your questions,

>Are you saying that all of God's ways are not just ones?. 

God defines what justice is and isn't.  Therefore, God's ways are just ones 
*by definition*.  We don't have the right to question God's justice
*regardless* of how God chooses to define justice, so the point is moot. 

>Seeing that the wisdom from above is "open to reason" in your mind, what
>quality does God display along with justice in condemning ungodly mankind to
>torment in a fiery hell? 

It is God's justice, period.  

>In Luke 6:27 Jesus teaches us to "love YOUR enemies" , how can God then do the
>opposite by tormenting his enemies seeing them suffer for all eternity. 

I could turn this question back on you:  "In Luke 6:27, Jesus teaches us to
'love YOUR enemies'.  How can God then do the opposite by annihilating his
enemies, destroying them for all eternity?"  Answer that one, and you will
have answered the question you posed to me for yourself.

>The important thing to learn is not what Jehovah God does, but why he does it.
>Eg why has he given mankind a redeemer? 

No, the most important thing to learn is what Jehovah God does, not why he does
it.  E.g. It is a fact that He has given mankind a redeemer.

Human reason and opinions change based on human failings.  The facts don't.


Re: .83  (Phil)

>	The "lake of fire" mentioned in Revelation is symbollic. 

Of course it is symbolic.  It symbolizes hell.

>	The Apostle Peter tells us that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah set
>	the pattern for ungodly people, 2 Peter 2:6 RSV reads "if by turning
>	the cities of Sodom and Gomor'rah to ashes he condemned them to 
>	extinction and made them an example to those who were to be ungodly;"

You think those of Sodom and Gomorrah are annihilated?  Tell me then, why will
it be "more bearable for Sodom on the day of Judgment" (Matt 11:24) than for
the cities of Korazin and Bethsaida in which Jesus preached his message? 

    Some thoughts...
    
    Re: .83, statement, "for God to torment Satan forever would mean that
    he would have to keep him alive for this purpose."
    
    If Satan, (and humans, for that matter), are eternal beings, then perhaps 
    it's not a matter of God keeping Satan alive, so much as Satan will be 
    alive because of the nature of his being, which is eternal. And God is not 
    tormenting Satan, but Satan has himself chosen torment rather than 
    submitting his life to God.  
    
    Also, re: "sin is death, the dead don't feel pain." In Genesis, God
    tells Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit of the tree of Knowledge
    because they will "die". They "died" to close communion with God, into
    sin and pain, and it took Jesus' atoning death and resurrection to 
    restore that communion with God. 
    
    Rebecca 
    

Thanks Rebecca ... very well expressed.

						Andrew

re: .85

Garth,

In answer to your reply...

>Are you saying that all of God's ways are not just ones?. 

;God defines what justice is and isn't.  Therefore, God's ways are just ones 
;*by definition*.  We don't have the right to question God's justice
;*regardless* of how God chooses to define justice, so the point is moot.

Yes, all of God's ways are just. God's sense of justice is fulfilled even in 
the offering of the gift of everlasting life to sinful mankind. I am not calling
into question God's definition of justice, I'm just asking what is God's
definition of justice in regard to the teaching of hellfire?.

>Seeing that the wisdom from above is "open to reason" in your mind, what
>quality does God display along with justice in condemning ungodly mankind to
>torment in a fiery hell? 

;It is God's justice, period.

Where can one look to see that it is God's justice?. One can understand
the principle of "soul for soul", but not eternal torture.


>In Luke 6:27 Jesus teaches us to "love YOUR enemies" , how can God then do the
>opposite by tormenting his enemies seeing them suffer for all eternity. 

;I could turn this question back on you:  "In Luke 6:27, Jesus teaches us to
;'love YOUR enemies'.  How can God then do the opposite by annihilating his
;enemies, destroying them for all eternity?"  Answer that one, and you will
;have answered the question you posed to me for yourself.

Look at it this way, it is not that God who destroys them for all eternity.
Though ungodly people will be destroyed at Armageddon, it is there withdrawing
from the "source of life" that will mean that they will never live again.
For example, one uproots all the weeds in their garden and then burns them 
on a fire. Having been completely burn't do those weeds still live on?.

However, it is difficult to reason with you on Jesus' illustration of the
wheat and the weeds. Mainly, because we do not agree on the "make-up"
of man. Please correct if I'm wrong, you believe that we each have a 
soul that is immortal. Where I have come to believe that a "breathing man" 
is a soul and is mortal (Genesis 2:7). So perhaps there is no point in taking 
this discussion further.
  
>The important thing to learn is not what Jehovah God does, but why he does it.
>Eg why has he given mankind a redeemer? 

;No, the most important thing to learn is what Jehovah God does, not why he does
;it.  E.g. It is a fact that He has given mankind a redeemer.

Don't get me wrong, it is important what Jehovah God does but of what use
is a redeemer if as an individual I do not understand why I need a redeemer?.
Having the head knowledge that Jesus is my redeemer is of no benefit, if
I don't excerise faith in him. For many it will be of no benefit that mankind
has a redeemer for they will put their faith elsewhere. So as an individual the
"why" is very important indeed.


;You think those of Sodom and Gomorrah are annihilated?  Tell me then, why will
;it be "more bearable for Sodom on the day of Judgment" (Matt 11:24) than for
;the cities of Korazin and Bethsaida in which Jesus preached his message? 

	Without going into an in depth study, it would seem that Jesus
	was emphasing on what would happen to those who ignore the 
	"kingdom message" and not that there is a hope for those who
	perished in Sodom and Gomorrah (or that they are still alive in some
	way). They were rejecting the Messiah, eventhough the evidence pointed 
	to Jesus as being Jehovah's anointed one. But again I can see that we 
	have differing interpretations, in this case what is God's "day of 
	judgment". Hence we would look at Matthew 11:24 differently.


	Phil.



 

re.88

	Phil,

I think you missed Garth's last point concerning the inhabitants of Sodom
and Gommorah. 

ace

Hi Andrew,

;But you're right Phil in that we have a different interpretation, which we 
;can compare, but not resolve.

It is good to compare for it is my belief that God & Jesus want's us to 
resolve such differences for ourselves. The problem is that we can't just 
"sit on the fence" as it were with the teaching of hellfire. Why? , well
1) If it is a true teaching, then those who are aware of it and believe
it will need to tell others or they will incur blood guilt. 2) If it
is a false teaching then it besmirches God's name, Jesus told us to
pray for God's name to be sanctified (or made holy) hence in harmony
with ones prayer one would help others to see why it is a false teaching.

Both options are no doubt difficult ones, but persons need to identify
who's side they are on.

Phil.  

re .90

	Ace,

	No I don't think so, I understood that he was saying something like
	"if the inhabitants will be judged in front of God's throne on
	judgement day , then how can they be extinct?" However, I disagree
	with his interpretation in that the inhabitants had already 
	been given divine judgment and will not receive a resurrection 
	during God's day of judgment. Jesus was emphasing the plight
	of the inhabitants of Capernaum etc.. for not being responsive to
	the Messiah and the kingdom message. 

	Phil. 

  Hi Garth,

    From my perspective, you are stretching things a lot and you
    are blinded by preconception.

    For example, it is not accurate to use the English _eternal_
    in support of the time duration of the punishment of the
    unsaved.  Unless of course, what I have offered about the 
    uses of the word aion/aionios and how similar in use it is to
    the English word 'always' is inaccurate.

    For me, the main disconnect I see are four-fold.  One is the
    posture that aion/aionios necessarily means of infinite time duration
    in contrast to the posture that they have far greater flexibility
    of meaning (which posture I have given much evidence to support).

    Garth, can you show me that aion/aionios ought to be taken to 
    always mean for ever?  I honestly do not believe you can unless 
    you believe that the slave in Exodus 21:6 will serve his master
    for eternity to the future (aiona).

    Assuming the above cannot support the basis of your English inter-
    pretation of aiona, it seems your support depends on assuming that
    aiona must mean time eternal when it applies to the consciouss torment
    of the lost BECAUSE it means time eternal when it applies to the
    consciouss 'reward' of the saved.

    I fail to see such a basis linguistically, rationally, and logically.

    If I wrote out a paper that said in one section:

    "Tony will always live in Massachusetts"

    and somewhere else...

    "God will always be love"

    I would question the logic of someone REQUIRING both time durations
    to be equivalent on the basis of the same English word being used.

    There is simply no linguistic basis for that.

    It has already been shown irrefutably that aion has such a flexibility
    of meaning; a flexibility of meaning which is narrowed down by the
    NATURE of the object which it describes.

    In the case of the slave, aion means he will serve his master until
    he dies (obviously).

    Your basis is full of holes for me because it denies the most important
    thing - an accurate definition of the word aion/aionios.  For you to
    continue to render the incorrect english 'eternal' and 'for ever' is support
    (for me) that you prefer to sidestep this most important item - what the
    word aion actually means.

    What does the word mean to you?

    The second disconnect is why the saved have eternal consciouss reward.
    I am frankly amazed by the reliance upon total silence versus reliance
    on the Word of God.

    Please show me ONE TEXT that states that any part of man (this assumes
    man can be 'sliced up') is intrinsically eternal.

    Not only does scripture NEVER state that man is by nature immortal, it
    does state of God...

    1 Timothy 6:16
    "Who ONLY hath immortality..."

    and the Psalmist describes death as a state wherein "the dead know not
    anything" and "who can praise thee in the grave."

    Oh sure...we can assume things from complete silence, we can 'attach'
    so many possible interpretations to so many passages of scripture
    in order to 'fit' our preconceived notions.  We can say, "Well, no, 
    we really have immortality too and what Paul is REALLY saying in
    1 Timothy is..." and come up with a STRETCH (something other than what
    it plainly seems to be saying).  And we can do the same with the
    Psalmist verses and with Jude 7 and say "Well, it might be a surprise
    to you, but God wasn't including duration of punishment as part of what
    the _vengeance_ is.  The fact that one is infinity and the other was a
    matter of hours is CERTAINLY not relevent to degree of vengeance."

    (!!!!!)

    But, then again, you can prove anything you want if you 'stretch' far
    enough.

    I happen to believe that a far more accurate approach would be to consider
    that the Psalmist and Timothy verses mean just what they seem to mean.
    And then to find that life is not intrinsic to man, but is a GIFT and
    that God is the Life-Giver.

    I'll continue...

  Hi Garth,

    To continue...

    The third disconnect I see is a false view of what constitutes the final
    state of death.  Again I reference the Psalmist verses of which there
    are a few.  Taken just as they read, death is a state wherein there is
    no conscioussness.  (In addition, I find it surprising that assuming your
    view of eternal consciouss torment, the OT seems to offer no support.
    You would think God would have wanted to be clear!)

    Obadiah 15,16
    For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done,
    it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
    For as ye have drunk upon my holy mountain, so shall all the heathen
    drink continually, yea, they shall drink, and they shall swallow down,
    and they shall be 

    as though they had not been.

    
    Oh sure, we can stretch this one too.

    Deny the meaning of aion.  Stick to the english instead of digging for
    the Greek.  Ascribing life to our intrinsic state of being (regardless
    of total silence) and not atribute it as a gift from God.  Interpret
    death as a state of conscioussness and interpret the Psalmist verses
    other than what they so plainly seem to say.

    Once the definition of the word aion is understood, the number of times
    'stretching' is required to defend the eternal consciouss view is many-
    fold times more often than is the number of 'stretching' required to
    defend the eventual anihilation view.  The Old Testament is LOADED with
    allusions to destruction - total anihilation.  Its all over the place.

    One final thing (#4).  You spoke of God punishing.  Did you not read 
    my reply where I showed what the fire is?  The entire book of Daniel is
    apocalyptic.  Does it not strike you that the same fire that killed the
    Babylonians (near it) did not in any way harm the three brothers who were 
    in it?  It was the same fire.

    Why do people need to be prepared to inhabit Mount Zion?  Why could Moses
    not see God's face?  (He was not ready to see such love.)

    This is a critical question...

    Does God destroy in the presence of sin or does sin destroy in the presence
    of God?

    The love of God unveiled brings to the mind a keen awareness of the 'evil
    of evil' and thus ACTIVATES sin (if its in the heart).  

    It is agape which brings out the latent destructive force of sin.

    Finally, Deuteronomy pictures the rain as DOCTRINE.  

    I do not believe we have received the former rain (much less the latter!).

    Eph 3 speaks of coming to a knowledge of agape so that we can "be filled
    with all the fulness of God."

    I believe a rough 'picture' of the path of the just is an inverse function:
   
    y = 1/x

    where x = unbelief

    and   y = "Christ in you, the hope of glory."

    When unbelief is complete (infinite), y=1/infinity=0.

    There is none of Christ in you.

    When unbelief is completely gone (=0) y=1/0 = infinity (being filled
    with all the fulness of God).

    I know its a rough estimate, but just trace the function y = 1/x.

    I believe the church is way to the right of that curve (to the right 
    of x=1).  And if I'm right, there is a tremendous revival ahead of us.
    And when a group comes to a point of so little resistence, the light
    is gonna be like the sun.  It'll be like 40 days and nights of a flood.

    And that group will look back at those that hung on to their present
    understanding of God and that group will look like they have 4 heads.

    And the group that hung on to their present understanding will look at
    the last generation and THEY will look like they have 4 heads.  Their
    'understanding' will seem repugnant.

    That last day group will have tasted 40 days and nights of a flood's
    worth of DOCTRINE and will seem so different.  The confused ecumenical
    movement on one side, the army of Joel "as bright as the sun" on the
    other.  And the stage will be set for the mark of the beast.

    All I'm saying is there is a LOT we don't know about God.  Laodicaea
    knows not.

    Holding on to present knowledge (to a large extent) is hanging onto
    "knowing not."

                                                   Tony

re.92

	Phil,

	See? You are confused! 8*) 8*)

	"Why will it be "more bearable for Sodom on the day of Judgment"
(Matt 11:24) than for the cities of Korazin and Bethsaida in which Jesus 
preached his message?"


ace

    Whenever I have a question or a conflict with trying to understand
    something in scripture, I go to Matthew, Mark, Luke and/or John, to the
    words and life of Jesus.  He is the fulfillment of the Old Testament
    law and He is the truest measure that I have of the nature of God. His
    life shows me that He loves us - He healed our wounds and our
    infirmities, He taught us, He wept with us and He ultimately died for
    us - that we might have eternal life.  And he tells me that if I believe in
    Him and do the will of the Father that I will have eternal life. And I
    believe Him.
    
    The nature of God as revealed through Jesus is one of concern and love
    for our well-being and part of that concern, an enormous part of that
    concern is keeping us out of hell, out of the lake of fire, (and Jesus
    does say it's eternal), and bringing us back into communion with God. 
    Jesus gave his very life for this purpose. If death were only
    nothingness, why is He so worried about us?
    
    Now I have a question, which I couldn't find the answer to last night,
    and I'm hoping someone here can help me. What is the origin of the
    Abyss and the Lake of Fire?  Does the Bible tell us?  Is it God's 
    creation, or is it something apart from, outside of God?
    
    Rebecca   

    Hi Rebecca,
    
    Jesus created the Abyss and Lake of Fire for Satan and his angels. 
    Jesus was the creator of everything, nothing exists anywhere that was
    not created by God.
    
    jeff

    Thank you, Jeff.
    
    Rebecca

John 3:16  For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    Oh! I hit the enter button too quickly. Could you or someone else enter 
    the specific verses where it talks about this.  I was searching through 
    my Bible last night and I couldn't find where it said who created them 
    (Abyss and Lake of Fire) or when or anything. I'll keep looking too.
    
    Thanks!
    
    Rebecca 

      Hi Rebecca,
    
        Yes, look to the gospels.
    
        Jesus was numbered with the transgressors.
    
        Let what happened to Jesus inform us of what will happen
        to the unsaved.
    
        From a time standpoint, what befalls the unsaved must be
        similar to what befell Christ.  He tasted the sufferings 
        of death for every man.
    
        When keeping the discussion cross-centered (Christ-centered,
        gospel-centered) and realizing Jesus bore the weight, the
        truth of what happens to the unsaved is illuminated.
    
        The eternal consciouss view can in no way equate the bearing
        of sin by the unsaved to the bearing of sin by Christ for
        the difference in time (of bearing sin) between Christ and the
        unsaved is infinite.
    
        Rebecca, I've spent a lot of time expounding on a more accurate
        rendering of the Greek word from which the english 'eternal' was
        used.  Past replies might add some information you are not aware of.
    
        Finally, the death Christ died is not a picnic.  Somehow, it rubs
        me the wrong way to reduce the tremendous sufferings of Christ
        by implying there isn't fear enough in that and so what befalls
        the unsaved must be worse (in order to sufficiently motivate man).
    
                                                   Tony

>        When keeping the discussion cross-centered (Christ-centered,
>        gospel-centered) and realizing Jesus bore the weight, the
>        truth of what happens to the unsaved is illuminated.

What do mean by this, Tony?  If the unsaved are to be vaporized, how
could Jesus bear the weight of what happens to the unsaved?

>        Finally, the death Christ died is not a picnic.  Somehow, it rubs
>        me the wrong way to reduce the tremendous sufferings of Christ
>        by implying there isn't fear enough in that and so what befalls
>        the unsaved must be worse (in order to sufficiently motivate man).

Fear in another's death is nothing, for I am untouched.
We can be moved by another's death, but it is not fear.
Also, you completely miss the point to think that Hell 
is an invention to scare people into heaven.

For all your words, you have said that "forever" has several possible meanings
and cling to your own.  You have said that not even the saved will be
eternal, because only God is immortal (two different words and meanings).

Long on words, but short on sense, but then again, I may only be seeing
a four-headed creature.  (That is, I'm the short-sensed one.)

Mark

    I don't believe God motivates by fear Tony. I think that's a human
    tactic. I also didn't find what you wrote to be very clear - what I got
    out of it is that you don't believe that Jesus lives - is that correct?
    
    Rebecca

      Hi,
    
        I thought you guys were using fear as motivation and
        I merely meant to apply your own reasoning back to
        you.
    
        Mark, I believe the saved have immortality - as a GIFT
        from Christ for Christ is life.  Have I not made this
        abundantly clear?
    
        My perspective is that you want to believe what you believe.
        I am not redefining 'immortal' or 'eternal', I am bringing
        to light how Greek scholars have defined aion/aionios.  The
        question is not one of redefining immortality or eternal, its
        one of truthfully trying to find if aion/aionios actually 
        have a different meaning than eternal/immortal to begin with.
    
        From my perspective, people continue to 'hide behind' the 
        English in place of the Greek because the Greek is too 
        disclosing and the English is comfortably concealing.
    
        One can hang his hat on the english and (I agree) he can hold
        onto his present ideas of what befalls the unsaved.  Error 
        suits them quite well.
    
        What I have gotten for my aion/aionios efforts is discouragingly
        expected.  No matter if its truth, if it doesn't seem to fit
        with a belief system, its merit ought not be acknowledged.  I
        have not found a single person acknowledge the possibility that
        aion/aionios does not mean immortal/eternal - no matter the 
        evidence.
    
        The fact is, they do not mean eternal/immortal in the first
        place - at least as far as the writers of the Greek OT are
        concerned.
    
        Gee, it was their own language.
    
                                                   Tony

      Hi Mark,
    
        I will explain what I presently believe the bearing of
        the wages of sin is (in a later reply).  No time now!
    
        I reread and I found no reference to you or Rebecca
        (hi Rebecca!) applying fear as motivation.  I don't
        know how I imagined it!
    
        By the way Mark, what is the purpose of hell?  You stated
        that I totally missed it, what is it?  I have an idea (with
        my understanding of things of course).
    
        Finally, can you cite me a single time I have redefined the
        english words "for ever" or "eternal"???
    
        I believe I have attempted to define a Greek word and no
        english words and painstakingly done so with a fair amount of
        evidence.  
    
        Is that guy in Exodus going to be a slave for ever?
    
        Well, gotta run...
    
                                                    Tony

    Tony,
    
    I have curtailed my participation of late but I will answer one
    question and leave the rest for soeone who cares to continue to attempt
    to make sense of your replies.
    
    The purpose of hell is to hold those who have rejected God.
    The nature of hell is torment, because of separation from God (all that
    is good, the Source of all good).  Whether it is literal fire or
    figuratove fire doesn't make a whole lot of difference, it is conscious
    torment.
    
    You suggest that those who do not hold your opinion have not refuted
    you but they have in previous incarnations of this topic and I'm not
    about to go back and dig, so this will have to be an unsubstatiated
    claim.  I'm sorry.
    
    Further, you have not refuted any counter assertions except to claim
    something about Anion in "the greek OT" (which I thought was Hebrew so
    I confess my lack of scholarship in such matters).
    
    Lastly, it seems that I am not the only one who gets lost on your
    replies (remember we had a discussion about using jargon and esoteric
    terminology?), and submit that this is more a reason why you don't get
    as many rebuttals as you think you might have otherwise, instead of
    people being unable to refute your arguments.
    
    Sorry to be so blunt, my friend, but I probably shouldn't have
    responded and don't intend to respond further.  It is someone else's
    turn.  :-)
    
    Mark

    If Lazarus and the rich man is not enough to convince anyone of the
    contiuation of consciousness after death, try Matthew 17:2-3 on for
    size:
    
    And [Jesus] was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the 
    sun, and his raiment was white as the light.  And, behold, there
    appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
    
    Unlike the ghost of Samuel, about whom there is some debate whether it
    was a demon apparition or Samuel's actual ghost, here we see Moses and
    Elisha (Elias) appearing after their deaths.  Now, one could infer that
    God, being Sovereig, can do whatever he wants, if to resurrect these
    two for this specific moment (and subsequently put them back into 
    unconscious sleep, or death until the resurrection).  But who would be
    stretching things?
    
    Also read where Jesus was questioned about the resurrection, asking
    whose wife would a woman be if seven husbands die.  Matthew 22:29-32:
    
    "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the
    scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither
    marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in
    heaven.  But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read
    that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 'I am the God of
    Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?  God is not the
    God of the dead, but of the living."
    
    Lest anyone contend and say that this talks about some future
    resurrection event, take note that God says that He *is* the God of the
    living (present tense).  This adds weight to the story Jesus tells of
    Lazarus and the rich man where Abraham is present, conscious, and
    offers advice to the rich man.  God is the God of Abraham, the living.
    God is not the God of Abraham, the dead.
    
    Again, there was significance in Jesus waiting until the forth day
    before raising the other Lazarus back to life.  Jewish belief was that
    the soul stood watch over the body for three days and departed after
    that.  Jesus resurrected Lazarus on the fourth day declaring "I am the
    resurrection, and the life.  He that believeth in me, though he were
    dead, yet shall he live!"  John 11:25
    
    Also, John 5:26-29:
    
    "For as the Father hath life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to
    have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment
    also, because he is the Son of man.  Marvel not at this: for the hour
    is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
    and shall come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection
    of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of
    damnation."
    
    The dead will hear and their spirits will rejoin their bodies in
    resurrection of life or damnation.  Mortal will put on immortality.
    Just for those who will have life?  Not according to John 5:29.
    
    Some time ago, I believe I put inthe definitions for the word death.
    Perhaps the meanings of this word have confused some in their
    interpretation.  Or perhaps the meanings of "knowing nothing" is
    confused in the Psalms.
    
    There is reason that traditional interpretation of the Word of God
    survives and that "newly revealed" doctrine is to be eschewed.
    
    Mark Metcalfe
    

re.107 (Mark)

> take note that God says that He *is* the God of the
>    living (present tense). 

	Excellent.

ace

Re: .88  (Phil)

>I am not calling into question God's definition of justice, I'm just asking
>what is God's definition of justice in regard to the teaching of hellfire?. 

It is that the people that end up there for eternity deserve it.

>Where can one look to see that it is God's justice?. One can understand
>the principle of "soul for soul", but not eternal torture.

Based on the scriptures already cited in this note string, it *is* God's
justice.  To what extent we understand (or misunderstand) it is besides the
point.  Our understanding of justice must be brought in line with the facts of
how God defines justice. 

Again, if you won't accept eternal torture, then you shouldn't accept eternal
reward.  If Jesus died, "soul for soul", to save us from the sins of a mere
lifetime, then how could you suggest that we be ever be saved for eternity? 
But the truth is that the price Jesus paid results in eternal reward. 
Similiarly, rejection of Jesus results in eternal punishment. 

>>>In Luke 6:27 Jesus teaches us to "love YOUR enemies" , how can God then do
>>>the opposite by tormenting his enemies seeing them suffer for all eternity. 
>
>;I could turn this question back on you:  "In Luke 6:27, Jesus teaches us to
>;'love YOUR enemies'.  How can God then do the opposite by annihilating his
>;enemies, destroying them for all eternity?"  Answer that one, and you will
>;have answered the question you posed to me for yourself.
>
>Look at it this way, it is not that God who destroys them for all eternity.
>Though ungodly people will be destroyed at Armageddon, it is there withdrawing
>from the "source of life" that will mean that they will never live again.
>For example, one uproots all the weeds in their garden and then burns them 
>on a fire. Having been completely burn't do those weeds still live on?.

Read the above exchange again.  You have not in principle answered the question
you yourself posed.  God will destroy people at Armageddon.  How is that to be
considered "loving your enemies"? 

>However, it is difficult to reason with you on Jesus' illustration of the
>wheat and the weeds. Mainly, because we do not agree on the "make-up"
>of man. 

That's right.  You don't believe that anything remains once the body is 
destroyed, much less a soul or spirit that suffers torment in hell for an
eternity.  Those two principles are consistent with each other.  They are
together not consistent with God's word, however.

>>The important thing to learn is not what Jehovah God does, but why he does it.
>>Eg why has he given mankind a redeemer? 
>
>;No, the most important thing to learn is what Jehovah God does, not why he 
>;does it.  E.g. It is a fact that He has given mankind a redeemer.
>
>Don't get me wrong, it is important what Jehovah God does but of what use
>is a redeemer if as an individual I do not understand why I need a redeemer?.

"...why I need..." and "...why He does..." are two different things.

You need a redeemer because it is a fact that you have sinned and have fallen
short of the glory of God.  

>Having the head knowledge that Jesus is my redeemer is of no benefit, if
>I don't excerise faith in him.  For many it will be of no benefit that mankind
>has a redeemer for they will put their faith elsewhere. So as an individual the
>"why" is very important indeed.

You are confusing the issue.  God chose -- for whatever reason He deemed good
enough -- to provide us with a redeemer.  It doesn't matter why.  We accept
the fact that he *did* and place our faith in him.

Tying this back into the hell and torment issue, God chose -- for whatever 
reason He deemed good enough -- to create a place of fiery torment where he
will condemn ungodly creatures forever.  It doesn't matter why.  We accept
the fact that he *did*.

>;You think those of Sodom and Gomorrah are annihilated?  Tell me then, why will
>;it be "more bearable for Sodom on the day of Judgment" (Matt 11:24) than for
>;the cities of Korazin and Bethsaida in which Jesus preached his message? 
>
>	Without going into an in depth study, it would seem that Jesus
>	was emphasing on what would happen to those who ignore the 
>	"kingdom message" and not that there is a hope for those who
>	perished in Sodom and Gomorrah (or that they are still alive in some
>	way). They were rejecting the Messiah, eventhough the evidence pointed 
>	to Jesus as being Jehovah's anointed one. But again I can see that we 
>	have differing interpretations, in this case what is God's "day of 
>	judgment". Hence we would look at Matthew 11:24 differently.

You have missed the point.  Why will it be "more bearable for Sodom on the
day of judgment", if they are annihilated?

I am familiar with your definition of "day of judgment".  You are referring
to the millenial reign to come, the "1000 years" of Rev. 20.  This is just
confusing the issue.

Re: .92

>	No I don't think so, I understood that he was saying something like
>	"if the inhabitants will be judged in front of God's throne on
>	judgement day , then how can they be extinct?" However, I disagree
>	with his interpretation in that the inhabitants had already 
>	been given divine judgment and will not receive a resurrection 
>	during God's day of judgment. 

You have still missed the point.  How can it be "more bearable for Sodom on
the day of judgment" if they have already been judged, are annihilated, and
will never again be resurrected for judgment?

Re: .93  (Tony)

I am not missing your "aion/aionios" discussion.  My point is that unless the
"always" is limited by something, we can rightly assume that the "always" will
never end. 

>    It has already been shown irrefutably that aion has such a flexibility
>    of meaning; a flexibility of meaning which is narrowed down by the
>    NATURE of the object which it describes.

As Mark Metcalfe pointed out, and I repeated, the NATURE of hell is not
limited by anything, anymore than the NATURE of heaven is.  So we conclude
that they go on "always", without limit.

The NATURE of a lifetime on earth is limited.  If it weren't, then your
"slave of Exodus" would truly be a slave for eternity.  But this life on earth
and the worldly things of this age will pass away.  

People that go to heaven stay there eternally.  Why do you assume that people
that go to hell don't stay there eternally?  It is because you are allowing
yourself to be confused by multiple concepts of immortality, death, and the
soul/spirit of a man.

re .109

	Garth,

>what is God's definition of justice in regard to the teaching of hellfire?. 

;It is that the people that end up there for eternity deserve it.

	Here lies the moral dilemma, what is that people have done to
	deserve such a punishment?. No doubt you say rejection of God, 
	but is that in itself justification for punishing in a 
	continual cruel way?.

;Based on the scriptures already cited in this note string, it *is* God's
;justice.  To what extent we understand (or misunderstand) it is besides the
;point.  Our understanding of justice must be brought in line with the facts of
;how God defines justice. 

	King David meditated on God's word and learn't God's justice and was
	able to say "Your judicial decisions I have considered appropriate"
	Psalms 119:30 NWT. How is it appropriate in your viewpoint that
	sinful mankind deserves eternal torment from a loving God?.

;Again, if you won't accept eternal torture, then you shouldn't accept eternal
;reward.  If Jesus died, "soul for soul", to save us from the sins of a mere
;lifetime, then how could you suggest that we be ever be saved for eternity? 

	Well, if I am handcuffed in irons then I will remain so until someone 
	has the power to release me. The reason that humankind do not live 
	forever, as was the original purpose for Adam & Eve, is that they are 
	in bondage to sin and the wages for sin is death. Now if someone offers 
	to release me from the handcuffs and I refuse then I will remain 
	handcuffed. Similiarly God is offering to release persons from being 
	captive to sin, however the majority do not recognise that they are in 
	bondage or the provision that Jehovah has provided and so reject God's 
	provisions for life itself. As Romans 3:23-25 NWT reads "For all have 
	sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and it is as a free gift 
	that they are being declared righteous by his underserved kindness 
	through the release by the ransom [paid] by Christ Jesus. God set him 
	forth as an offering for propitiation through faith in his blood. This 
	was in order to exhibit his own righteousness, because he was forgiving
	the sins that occurred in the past while God was excercising 
	forbearance."

;But the truth is that the price Jesus paid results in eternal reward. 
;Similiarly, rejection of Jesus results in eternal punishment. 
	

	If you are offered a free gift and you refuse to except it then
	what do you get? nothing no?. Hence if you reject being released
	from bondage to sin, then you remain in bondage. Now bondage
	to sin means death, nothing more and nothing less (Romans 6:23).


	More later..

	Phil.

	RE.111

	Phil,

	A comment from the peanut gallery..  8*)  8*)

	Your arguments are colored by your opinion that God's justice 
cannot include eternal punishments in hell for Satan and his angels or for those
who follow him. Someone else may take your opinion a step further and think that
God would never throw anybody into hell period, and yet another may take your
approach and think that a loving God would always give everyone eternal life.
If you dropped this opinion, you might see things differently.

	That is the problem with basing one's "religion" on one's opinion.
Someone who does this will read the Bible and "see" their opinion in it, bacause
that is what they want to see. If they can't see their opinion in it they will
infer their opinions into it, and if something in the Bible contradicts their 
opinion they will metaphorize the Bible to support their opinion.

	Our opinion about God's justice means nothing. What matters is God's
opinion. That can be found in the Bible. God's Word is our starting point, our
way, and our conclusion.

regards,
ace

	

    re: .111 the statement "Herein lies the moral dilemma, what is it that
    people have done to deserve such a punishment? No doubt you say
    rejection of God, but is that in itself justification for punishing in
    a continual cruel way?"
    
    Ultimately, what more is there? Either you accept, fall down before and
    worship Him or you reject Him. There simply isn't anything else. God 
    hasn't kept hell a secret. He has given everyone a choice, a very clear 
    choice, and what's amazing is that there will be those who CHOOSE
    eternal punishment over life in Him.
    
    Rebecca 

           <<< Note 94.112 by LEDS::LOPEZ "A River.. proceeding!" >>>

>	That is the problem with basing one's "religion" on one's opinion.
>Someone who does this will read the Bible and "see" their opinion in it, bacause
>that is what they want to see. If they can't see their opinion in it they will
>infer their opinions into it, and if something in the Bible contradicts their 
>opinion they will metaphorize the Bible to support their opinion.

This is true - very true. However, can you say you have not done this as
well?  I keep trying to remember the TV show I saw about hell, and what it
might be... If I remember correctly, the view of hell has changed a lot over
time, mostly due to non-biblical works, such as Dantes Inferno... 

For many generations, people have been raised to view hell in a certain way.
When we were but children, we didn't get our understanding of what hell is
from the Bible, but from our parents and church. The same goes for every
generation. Before we are able to read and understand the Bible we already
have an opinion on what it means... therefore we all "see" our opinion
in it... True, some have to really stretch the Word to make their opinions 
seem Bibically supported, and in those cases it's usually very easy to 
disprove their position.

I really don't know if it's an eternal life of torment or death for
eternity.

There are what stands out 2 weaknesses in this discussion:

Weakness 1:  This is the "eternal torment" people's explantion of what
             the word "death" means. I don't buy that "death" means some
             sort of "eternal seperation from God, but you are aware of it".
             The scriptures used to support this are very weak (at least the
             ones that have been entered here).

Weakness 2:  This is for the "I don't believe it's eternal torment" people.
             I feel Rev 20:10 is a sticky point for your arguement "...they
             will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." I don't feel
             anythings been proven with the argument that it is simply a bad
             translation.

So both sides I feel are fitting the Bible into their view. I'm sure both
sides feel that I'm wrong about this.  ;)

In closing, I'm not sure which is right... but if we follow God then hopefully
none of us will have to worry about what happens in hell, because we won't be
going there!

In Him,
Scott

>This is true - very true. However, can you say you have not done this as
>well?  I keep trying to remember the TV show I saw about hell, and what it
>might be... If I remember correctly, the view of hell has changed a lot over
>time, mostly due to non-biblical works, such as Dantes Inferno...

Hi Scott.  Be careful of the wile called confusion.  The TV show you saw
was written and produced by people you have placed faith in to provide you
with supposedly historical data.  (P.S.  I've read Dante's Inferno;
quite a compelling work.)

Now, I did not see the TV show, but let us suppose they reported factually 
on a belief of people in the 1990s that David Koresh was an incarnation 
of Jesus.  This report occurs in the year 2493.  One might be led to believe
that this belief in Koresh was held as a prevailing attitude, or at least
an alternate belief to the prevailing attitude, when in fact it is a small
(and relatively insignificant) number of people who held this belief.

The quadrilateral means to determine truth (John Wesley) says that we must
look at things by God's Word, by tradition, by reason, and by experience,
in that order.  Too often we get this backwards and say, my experience
with a loving God leads me to reason that He would not do as tradition
says so the Word must be interpreted incorrectly.  We should say, this
is what the Bible says, does tradition support what is being said?, is
it reasonable (does tradition answer the interpretation plausibly), 
and what experience do I have to confirm this.

Yes, every one of us INTERPRETS the Bible; every one.  But it does not
take away from the fact that the Bible is an objective piece of work and
holds a Truth whether we interpret it correctly or not.  That is, the
Bible is without flaw; interpretation is not without flaw.  When we have
trouble with interpretation, we look to tradition attempting to trace
back to the origin.

The backwards people will pose "reason" and "experience" that sound 
plausible based on an incomplete premise: God is Love.  God is also
jealous, just, and indeed hates some things (see note 45.*)
The whole premise is that "God is God and I am not."  It would do us all
some good to repeat that several times: "God is God and I am not."

When we start with this premise: God is God, we can better come to God's
Word with the perspective that He will reveal his nature through it.
And when things don't quite fit because we don't see it (whether it
be because of conflicting voices of confusion, or because we've
discovered something that puzzles us), we remember that God is God and I
am not, which helps us to trust God, even when answers are not readily 
apparent.

Cheers.

Mark

    .115
    
    Thanks, I needed that!

re.115 (Mark)

Yes.

Another common misperception is the idea of Satan in with pitchfork, keeper of 
hell and red longjohns. 8*)

If Satan were this way few, if anyone, would ever be duped into following him.
But instead he appears as an angel of light to deceive believers and unbelievers
alike. 

God's Word is the only reliable source.

ace

    My, my, ... this is a hot topic ...
    
    re .95 (LEDS::LOPEZ)/Ace
    
>	Phil,
>
>	See? You are confused! 8*) 8*)
>
>	"Why will it be "more bearable for Sodom on the day of Judgment"
>(Matt 11:24) than for the cities of Korazin and Bethsaida in which Jesus 
>preached his message?"
    
    	I haven't had much time of late to read this conference, let alone
    participate, but I just scanned the last 30 replies (or so), and think
    I can add something to this dangling point.
    
    	As Phil already said, Jesus was making it clear that he was
    condemning the local towns (Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum).  His
    choice of words, "It will be more tolerable on the day of judgment day
    for [Tyre and Sidon, v.22; the land of Sodom, v.24] than for you" (RSV)
    was a form of exageration that meant that since Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom
    were all towns that received God's adverse judgement, to say it would
    be "MORE tolerable" for them on judgment day than for the local towns
    was a sarcastic way of saying the local towns would have even LESS of a
    chance of escaping judgment (meaning they had NO chance, given that
    they were eye-witnesses to so much more of God's glory, through Jesus).
    
    	It was evidently well understood in that day that Sodom and
    Gommorah were classic, historical examples of proof that God has the
    will and means to bring permanant destruction on those whom he judges
    as thoroughly wicked.  Jude expressed the assurance of judgment against
    "the angels that did not keep their own position ... [for] act[ing]
    immorally and [for] indulg[ing] in unnatural lust" (v.6a,7b RSV) by
    comparing their future judgment to the past judgment against Sodom and
    Gomorrah and its people (who "LIKEWISE acted immorally and indulged in
    unnatural lust") -- writng that those cities (along with those whom God
    destroyed for wickedness after having left Egypt) "serve as an example
    by undergoing punishment of eternal fire" (RSV).
    
    	Peter also made reference to the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah
    as an indication that God will likewise [in the future] judge those in
    contemporay times who are "unrighteous" and "indulge in the lust of
    defiling passion and despise authority" (2Pet 2:9,10).  Like Jude,
    Peter made reference to "the angels that sinned" (who are awaiting
    judgment), and then wrote:
    
    		"by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes
    		he condemned them to EXTINCTION and made them an example
    		to those who were to be ungodly [in times to come]" (v.6 RSV)
    
    Although Sodom and Gomorrah aren't LITERALLY still burning with the
    fire and sulphur that God reigned down from heaven upon them, those
    cities remain destroyed to this day (and thus have undergone
    "punishment of eternal fire" -- meaning its effects are eternal).  Its
    people aren't literally being burned forever with everlasting fire, for
    Peter makes it clear that they merely have become "extinct" for all
    time.  But the judgment against them was understood as being final (and
    here confirmed by inspiration) which makes them fitting "examples" of
    destruction, and thus it was fitting for Jesus to exagerate (i.e. to
    say that it would be "more tolerable" for those cities than for the
    towns in his day) in order to drive home the point that Chorazin, et.
    al., were bringing down final judgment against themselves after having
    had even MORE of an opportunity to repent of their wickedness.
    
    
    								-mark.

.119  Mark S

If what you say is true, and Jesus was exaggerting to make a point,
then Jesus must also have lied, because the people in the towns of
his day are also dead (extincted), and yet they did not suffer MORE
than Sodom or Gomorrah.  In fact, this is the last time we hear of 
these other towns, and so this "exaggeration" is made to be untrue.

But I think instead you have avoided the proper reading of the phrase
"more bearable... on the day of judgement"  Which must mean one of two things:

(1) The day of judgment is a specific time for all together.
(2) The day of judgement is an individual expression for all.

If (1) then the [former] residents of Sodom will be in attendance with the 
[former] residents of Korizan, and it (judgment) will be more bearable
for the Sodomites.

If (2) then how was Korizan's fate less bearable than the fire and brimstone
"extinction" of Sodom?  Simply because they had the truth preached but did
not believe?  How would that make a difference to someone who is not
conscious and dead without thought?  How is there relational weight applied,
whether exaggerated or not in this case?

It doesn't make sense.

MM

  Hi All,

    Just some miscellaneous comments...

    Garth, I understand 'always' to describe not hell but the
    person.  Perhaps you can show me grammatically a scripture
    in which aion or aionios describes hell?  You seemed to 
    recognize for ever as describing the slave in Exodus and
    so I am wondering how it is you 'switched gears' and applied
    for ever not to the person (the unsaved), but to the _place_
    (hell).

    By the way, speaking of hell and its eternality...scripture
    states that Jesus went to sheol as well as hades.  How do you
    square that with your view?

    Rebecca, you mentioned something I think is pretty significant.
    You mentioned how the outcome is CLEAR and I am assuming that
    you refer to clear as in clear from scripture.  Well, assuming 
    that less than 2000 years of our ~6000 years of earth's history
    has had the NT, could you show me from the OT how clear it is???
    And if its not clear, why not???  Actually, the OT is very clear,
    it says much concerning what befalls the unsaved - though none
    of it supportive of the eternal consciouss torment view.

    My basic posture remains unchanged and Garth you shined the
    'blazing light' on why.  You mentioned (I believe) how God does
    not love His enemy.

    It all comes down to comprehending just who God is which is Paul's
    prayer in Eph 3.  I believe that God loves unconditionally.  His
    love is sovereign, free, independent.  Its not a love dependent
    upon the characteristics of its object.  God loves Satan with an
    infinite love.

    The reason the unsaved suffer the torment they do is not because
    God longs to punish them, it is because God has allowed service
    to Him to be voluntary being a response to His character of love.  
    Given the above, there is a SPIRITUAL REALITY and that is that if
    one in whom sin resides should witness the unveiled presence of
    God (the fire of God's love) that person would undergo psychic
    despair.  God's love for him would still be there - it hasn't changed.
    But, sin has wrapped within it the characteristic of misperception.
    The sinner is blind to that love and so it is beyond reach.  The
    sinner despairs and this despair is equivalent in magnitude to the
    inherent 'evil of evil.'  God does not punish the unsaved, the punish-
    ment is intrinsic to sin and revealed by God's love (see Romans 7/
    Isaiah 6/story of Judas' death).  This is represented by the fire
    in Daniel.  It did not consume Daniel's brothers, it did consume
    the Babylonians.

    Garth, you may not agree, but the above is my personal present under-
    standing of what befalls the unsaved and it is consistent with a
    belief that God's love is impartial and unconditional.

    So, it all boils down to comprehending agape which I happen to believe
    is pretty important.

    A couple other things.

    We can go back and forth for a zillion years.  I've heard it all before.
    I'm telling ya, if you actually went through the whole of the Bible and
    counted the number of times scripture was 'stretched' from what it plainly
    seems to say (in order to be consistent with your view) one would find
    the eternal consciouss view to need to 'stretch' at least threefold more
    verses than the finite consciouss torment view.  The OT is loaded with
    scriptures describing complete destruction, unconscioussness at death,
    etc.  The number of verses is massive.  Virtually all of them need to
    be 'stretched' to suppor the eternal consciouss torment view.  

    Once aion/aionios is better understood, there are not many verses that
    are 'stretched' in order to find consistency with the finite consciouss
    torment view.

    I'll continue...

  Hi All,

    Continuing

    Take the Transfiguration which was mentioned.  We all know that Elijah
    was translated.  I believe Jude shows that Moses was resurrected.  So,
    the Transfiguration is actually more supportive of the finite view for
    (if one assumed the eternal consciouss torment view) out of all the 
    saints no longer alive on earth, the Transfiguration just happened to
    pick two out of the three known to be BODILY in heaven (Enoch being the
    other).  Imagine that!  Certainly David wasn't there.  He (David - not
    just his body, but DAVID) is still in the grave according to Acts.

    When I look at the massive number of texts that need to be stretched in
    order to find consistency with the eternal consciouss torment view and
    couple that with the aion LXX stuff, one other thing is the coup de grace.

    When one wants to know what befalls the unsaved, just look at what befell
    Christ.  And simply equate the two.

    Both Christ and the unsaved bear all the despair that the full weight of
    sin suggests to you.  THAT IS THE PRICE.  Christ bore sin in its complete
    potency suggesting utter despair.  By faith, Christ was victorious over
    it, the unsaved were not for faith they lacked.

    But, anyway, those three things...

    comparison of number of texts that have to be stretched

    dig deeper into aion/aionios

    comparison of what sin did to Christ/does to unsaved

    are so substantial.


    For me personally, to see the sufferings of Christ which took a few
    hours on the cross and to say "This is the wages of sin" and then to
    point to the unsaved and say "That is the wages of sin" is so void
    of the gospel.

    Forgive me for being so 'unmainline', but I will stretch much less
    scripture, I will continue to study the Greek and find more about how
    aion/aionios are used, and I will even assume that what Christ bore
    and what the unsaved will bear (sin) is the same - and that includes
    from a time standpoint also.

    And I will continue to believe that to depart from the cross in the
    question of what sin ultimately does to the unsaved (including the
    time aspect of it) is to depart from truth.

                                                      Tony

    re 94.120 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark

    	Just to add a little more perspective to this expression (about
    being "more tolerable on the day of judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah",
    note that Jesus also used it when he sent the 12 (apostles) out "to the
    lost sheep of Israel" (Matt 10:5).  He said:

    		"And whatever town or village you enter, find out
    		who is worthy in it, and stay with him until you
    		depart. ... And if the house is worthy, let your
    		peace come upon it; but if it is not worthy, let
    		your peace return to you.  And if any one will not
    		receive you or listen to your words, shake off
    		the dust from your feet as you leave that house
    		or town.  Truly, I say to you, it shall be more
    		tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of
    		Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." (10:11,13-15 RSV)

    Jesus' point was clearly that those that rejected his disciples were
    bringing judgment against themselves (rather than it being that Sodom
    and Gomorrah were going to be given a break on judgment day, or that
    they would suffer even MORE than Sodom and Gomorrah).

>If what you say is true, and Jesus was exaggerting to make a point,
>then Jesus must also have lied, because the people in the towns of
>his day are also dead (extincted), and yet they did not suffer MORE
>than Sodom or Gomorrah.

    	There's no lie here, for the the point of passing final, adverse
    judgment on wicked people isn't to make them suffer (and thus make it
    possible to compare the degree of suffering, as though suffering is
    assessed as punitive damages against the wicked in addition to their
    receiving the punishment of destruction itself), but rather, to
    eliminate them from the realm of God's creation, so that the righteous
    might finally enjoy eternal life without being plagued forever by
    lingering wickedness.  Jesus wasn't really even talking about suffering
    (from the human standpoint of what it feels like to receive God's
    adverse judgment); he was simply making a point about the ultimate
    capital punishment for the wicked, which is eternal death (or
    "extinction", as the RSV adds).

    	If you say it's right to conclude that Jesus lied because the
    people of his day didn't "suffer more" than Sodom and Gomorrah, you
    might as well also say that Jesus lied when he said it would be easier
    to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
    "enter the kingdom of God"; for there were at least a few among the
    early brothers who were wealthy at one time, which would force us to
    conclude that it MUST be possible to put a camel through the eye of a
    needle, since some rich people clearly qualified for entrance into
    God's kingdom.  After all, wouldn't we be forced to take Jesus'
    comparision as literal to its fullest extent?

>                         In fact, this is the last time we hear of 
>these other towns, and so this "exaggeration" is made to be untrue.

    	I'm really not sure what you mean by this, but I see no reason to
    take the naming of three towns in particular (which rejected Jesus) at
    anything other than face value (for as mentioned above, in the previous
    chapter in Matthew, Jesus applied the expression about Sodom to *all*
    towns that would reject him; it just so happened that he was able to
    name three).  So what that this is the "last we hear of them"?  What
    need is there for us to possess historical proof that Chorazin,
    Bethsaida, and Capernaum all received a literal destruction that was
    worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah's?  Isn't the point clear that a
    person can be condemned forever by willfully rejecting the opportunity
    for life that the good news presents one with?  Aren't Jesus' word
    enough?
    
    							[continued...]

    [... continued] re 94.120 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark

>But I think instead you have avoided the proper reading of the phrase
>"more bearable... on the day of judgement"  Which must mean one of two things:
>
>(1) The day of judgment is a specific time for all together.
>(2) The day of judgement is an individual expression for all.

    	It's nice of you to give me a choice, but I gather that only one
    can be right, so by choosing the wrong one of these two, I still risk
    being guilty of "avoiding the proper reading of the phrase...", right?

    	Really, I'm not purposely avoiding any proper reading, but rather
    am taking into account other inspired scriptural evidence which proves
    that Jesus was simply predicting permanant death for those in his day
    who knowingly ignored the evidence of him that was before them.  No one
    questioned the significance of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction for
    wickedness, and thus the example of those cities was a fitting 'touch-
    stone' for Jesus to use as a comparative basis for judgment.

>If (1) then the [former] residents of Sodom will be in attendance with the 
>[former] residents of Korizan, and it (judgment) will be more bearable
>for the Sodomites.

    	But this ignores the existing declarations in the Bible that Sodom
    has already had final judgment passed against it, for Jude DID say that
    "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities ... serve as an example
    by undergoing a punishment of everlasting fire" (Jude 7 RSV). 
    Everlasting judgment (of "everlasting fire") has ALREADY been passed
    against the former residents of Sodom.  They are thus already in the
    symbolic "lake of fire" which represents the second death, from which
    there is no resurrection, and no second chance for a better judgment.

>If (2) then how was Korizan's fate less bearable than the fire and brimstone
>"extinction" of Sodom?  Simply because they had the truth preached but did
>not believe?  How would that make a difference to someone who is not
>conscious and dead without thought?  How is there relational weight applied,
>whether exaggerated or not in this case?

    	Chorazin's being MORE guilty of wickedness for having rejected the
    the truth about Christ after having heard it doesn't lessen the guilt
    of those in Sodom and Gomorrah who were found guilty by God of
    wickedness of a different sort.  The point isn't whether someone
    punished by "eternal fire" (for rejecting the truth) maintains some
    sense of recognition that they are MORE wicked than someone else also
    being so punished (like those of Sodom), but rather, that the living --
    who have the opportunity to hear the truth -- need to be aware that
    their choice to accept or reject the truth will be the most important
    factor in establishing whether they live (forever, being resurrected if
    necessary) or die (forever, being destroyed by divine action if
    necessary).

    	The point of Jesus' figure of speech wasn't to literally establish
    a "relational weight" for measuring degrees of wickedness, but merely
    to help people get the point that knowingly saying "no thanks" to the
    truth (about Christ) would as much serve as an indicator of wickedness
    on their part as the actions of those in Sodom did on their part.

>It doesn't make sense.

    	Dare I say it's because you're over literalizing a very simple
    point, that willful rejection of the truth about Christ is sufficient
    grounds for an adverse judgment against a person (or group of persons).

    	According to Jesus, there was no ambiguity about the nature of the
    judgment against Sodom (as though after the fact, some might be judged
    as less guilty).  In speaking about the judgment that would be passed
    upon the world when "the Son of man [will] be in his day" (Luke 18:24
    RSV), Jesus spoke of those in Noah's day who "ate," "drank," and etc.
    until "the flood of came and destroyed them all" (v.27), and he spoke
    of those in Sodom who also "ate," "drank," "sold," "planted," "built,"
    and etc., who, unlike Lot, were caught and killed when "fire and
    sulphur rained from heaven and destroyed them all" (vs. 28,29 RSV). 
    The righteous, Noah and Lot (and their families), were spared because
    they took heed of God's warning and followed his instructions in order
    to be protected; all the rest died, condemned for wickedness or mere
    indifferent, inaction.

    	Really, it's altogether superfluous to literally compare the
    permanant judgment against Sodom with the permanant judgment against
    the people of Chorazin, as though some significant difference can be
    found; for the bottom line is that both peoples received the same
    judgment, eternal death.  In reality, the comparision to be making is
    between those who accept Christ's message and those who reject it.


    								-mark.
    

re.121 (Tony)

> God loves Satan with an infinite love.

	This is an unbalanced view.

	God is righteous and would never compromise His righteousness.

ace

================================================================================
Note 94.121  STRATA::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    It all comes down to comprehending just who God is which is Paul's
>    prayer in Eph 3.  I believe that God loves unconditionally.  His
>    love is sovereign, free, independent.  Its not a love dependent
>    upon the characteristics of its object.  God loves Satan with an
>    infinite love.

See note 45.  Also these words attributed to God.

          Malachi 1:3

           3  And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his
          heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
          Romans 9:13

           13  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I
          hated.

Tony exhibits a backwards approach to arriving at truth by starting
with an incomplete premise about God's nature.

>    We can go back and forth for a zillion years.  I've heard it all before.

Not if we take your view, we can't.  ;^)  And if we do go back and forth for a
zillion years, we'll know who's right long before then.  :-)

================================================================================
Note 94.122 STRATA::BARBIERI "God can be so appreciated!"        52 lines  22-A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>    Take the Transfiguration which was mentioned. [Elijah, and Moses]

You did not take into account God's Words that He *is* th God of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob, and in the same paragraph that God is the God of the living
and not the dead, and so did not refer to simply Moses, Elijah, and Enoch.
You will have to do some of your own STRETCHING to show where Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob were translated.

>    comparison of number of texts that have to be stretched

The counter charge is that you do the stretching by coming at it from a [faulty
and incomplete] premise which colors your interpretation.

>    dig deeper into aion/aionios

This was addressed with your own arguments about the nature of the object
being discussed with the word forever.

>    comparison of what sin did to Christ/does to unsaved

This is backwards.  It is what Christ did with sin.

>    For me personally, to see the sufferings of Christ which took a few
>    hours on the cross and to say "This is the wages of sin" and then to
>    point to the unsaved and say "That is the wages of sin" is so void
>    of the gospel.

Evidently we (you and I) don't fully comprehend the price that Jesus, God
Immortal, paid on Calvary.  It is also evident that you would prefer to
believe that God will not do what He says He will do because it doesn't
fit with your notion of a "loving God."  You come at this from the wrong
direction.

Note 94.123  ILLUSN::SORNSON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Jesus' point was clearly that those that rejected his disciples were
>    bringing judgment against themselves (rather than it being that Sodom
>    and Gomorrah were going to be given a break on judgment day, or that
>    they would suffer even MORE than Sodom and Gomorrah).

We all bring judgment on ourselves.  Sodom brought judgment on itself.
So what's the point?

>       There's no lie here, for the the point of passing final, adverse
>    judgment on wicked people isn't to make them suffer (and thus make it
>    possible to compare the degree of suffering, as though suffering is
>    assessed as punitive damages against the wicked in addition to their
>    receiving the punishment of destruction itself), but rather, to
>    eliminate them from the realm of God's creation, so that the righteous
>    might finally enjoy eternal life without being plagued forever by
>    lingering wickedness.

Again, it does not fit with the [exaggerated] statement of Christ that
it would be more tolerable...  They got the same ultimate extinction.

>       If you say it's right to conclude that Jesus lied because the
>    people of his day didn't "suffer more" than Sodom and Gomorrah, you
>    might as well also say that Jesus lied when he said it would be easier
>    to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to
>    "enter the kingdom of God"; for there were at least a few among the
>    early brothers who were wealthy at one time, which would force us to
>    conclude that it MUST be possible to put a camel through the eye of a
>    needle, since some rich people clearly qualified for entrance into
>    God's kingdom.  After all, wouldn't we be forced to take Jesus'
>    comparision as literal to its fullest extent?

The "eye of the needle" is that little door in the middle of the city gate,
which is shut at night against invaders.  A man can walk through, but a camel
can only pass through that door if all of its load is taken off it and it
comes through on its knees.  The eye of the needle speaks metaphorically,
and you claim the "more tolerable" argument speaks in exaggeration.  Even by
your standard of judgment, you're mixing apples and oranges here.

Exaggeration is a magnification of a truism to make a point on a relative
basis.

>    What need is there for us to possess historical proof that Chorazin,
>    Bethsaida, and Capernaum all received a literal destruction that was
>    worse than that of Sodom and Gomorrah's?

If they were destroyed "worse", then we could say that Jesus words about
them were true.  But since they were not, we must assume that (1) Jesus
words were not true, or (2) Jesus words are not yet fulfilled.  The facts
in the case do not support your view.

>    Isn't the point clear that a
>    person can be condemned forever by willfully rejecting the opportunity
>    for life that the good news presents one with?  Aren't Jesus' word
>    enough?

This is a secondary point.  The primary point being made is that there will
either be a day of judgement for everyone individually, or everyone
collectively.  If individually, how does this square with it being more
tolerable for Sodom than for Korizan?  If collectively, then how does this
square with your view that people (of Sodom in particular) are dead, gone, and
vaoprized, not to be resurrected?

More to come...

Note 94.124  ILLUSN::SORNSON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>       Really, I'm not purposely avoiding any proper reading, but rather
>    am taking into account other inspired scriptural evidence which proves
>    that Jesus was simply predicting permanant death for those in his day
>    who knowingly ignored the evidence of him that was before them.  No one
>    questioned the significance of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction for
>    wickedness, and thus the example of those cities was a fitting 'touch-
>    stone' for Jesus to use as a comparative basis for judgment.

What was the comparative basis?  Sodom to Korizan, right?  Korizan is compared
unfavorably to Sodom, right?  So what is the reult of the comparison?
You say an exageration.  Jesus said that Sodom will be judged less severely
than Korizan.  How can this be is Sodom has already been judged?


Mark 6:11  And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart
thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them.
Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in
the day of judgment, than for that city.

Luke 10:12  But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day
for Sodom, than for that city.

Perhaps I instead I should ask you "when is the day of judgment that Christ
refers?"  Is it (a) the day Sodom got torched and the day Korizan will/did "get
it" (b) some future day that will see its inhabitants judged.

>       But this ignores the existing declarations in the Bible that Sodom
>    has already had final judgment passed against it, for Jude DID say that
>    "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities ... serve as an example
>    by undergoing a punishment of everlasting fire" (Jude 7 RSV).
>    Everlasting judgment (of "everlasting fire") has ALREADY been passed
>    against the former residents of Sodom.  They are thus already in the
>    symbolic "lake of fire" which represents the second death, from which
>    there is no resurrection, and no second chance for a better judgment.

Jude 1:7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like
manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,
are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Are suffering, or will be suffering, or both?  It does NOT say "had suffered"
does it?  If we take the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be true words of
Christ, then the rich man already suffers the vengence of eternal fire before
the judgement day.  Whether this is the final place, or if he will also be then
thrown into the lake of fire is not pertinent to this argument - the fact that
he is suffering is pertinent. And so, the residents of Sodom may also indeed
suffer the vengence of eternal fire outside of this material plane and time
some thousands of years ago.

Again, your view of the Word is clouded by your [faulty] premise.  That is, it
can't mean this because I think this is what it says, rather than saying this
is what it says and how does that square with what I think it means.

>       Chorazin's being MORE guilty of wickedness for having rejected the
>    the truth about Christ after having heard it doesn't lessen the guilt
>    of those in Sodom and Gomorrah who were found guilty by God of
>    wickedness of a different sort.

But how does it INCREASE the guilt, or rather, the consequences so that it
is "more bearable" for Sodom than Korizan?  This is what Jesus said.

>    The point isn't whether someone...

The point is what Jesus said and what we think he means by it.  By
speaking of ultimate separation from God for whatever sin is committed
is dodging what Jesus is saying.  And the issue of life after this
material plane.

>       The point of Jesus' figure of speech wasn't to literally establish
>    a "relational weight" for measuring degrees of wickedness, but merely
>    to help people get the point that knowingly saying "no thanks" to the
>    truth (about Christ) would as much serve as an indicator of wickedness
>    on their part as the actions of those in Sodom did on their part.

If Jesus meant "as tolerable" which is very different than [an exagerated]
"more tolerable", he would have said so.  And you bear the weight of proof to
the contrary.

>       Really, it's altogether superfluous to literally compare the
>    permanant judgment against Sodom with the permanant judgment against
>    the people of Chorazin, as though some significant difference can be
>    found; for ***the bottom line is that both peoples received the same
>    judgment, eternal death.***  In reality, the comparision to be making is
>    between those who accept Christ's message and those who reject it.

Your bottom line is true to the ultimate extent of rejecting God,
but diminishes the import of Christ's words on the matter.  But
let us remember *WHY* this argument is taking place: the eternality
of a person for judgement of pardon or damnation.  And whether or
not Korizan and Sodom ultimately receive eternal death (torment), they
both are judged either separately (in which case, Korizan has its destruction
more tolerable or at least equal to Sodom contrary to Christ's pronouncement)
or together (in which case, the residents of Sodom will be around on
judgment day, along with the rich man who spoke to Abraham.

Luke
29  Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear
them.
 30  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the
dead, they will repent.
 31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither
will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Mark 12:26  And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the
book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of
Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
 27  He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore
do greatly err.

    re .127 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>We all bring judgment on ourselves.  Sodom brought judgment on itself.
>So what's the point?
    
    	To a certain extent, we are under the burden of a judgment that we
    HAVEN'T directly brought upon ourselves, in that we have all inheritted
    judgment from Adam; he sinned, and he passed that sin on to his offspring;
    he died from his sin and we die from his sin.  That inheritted sin of
    ours may be pardoned on the basis of Christ's sacrifice.
    
    	In addition to Adam's sin, man can also willfully sin to the point
    of receiving an additional adverse judgment from God that cannot/will
    not be pardoned by Christ's sacrifice.  Evidently God judged the
    Sodomites as wicked enough to receive the judgment of "eternal fire"
    even before Christ came to earth to pay the ransom price for inheritted
    sin.  (Because they sought to abuse the very angels sent by God,
    perhaps we might say they were guilty of 'sin against the holy spirit',
    the angels being representatives of God and wielders of God's power.)
    All things considered, however, we can probably safely say that their
    interaction with God's angels was less of an opportunity to repent than
    the locals of Jesus' day had due to their interaction with the Son of
    God.
    
    	The residents of Chorazin and the other towns were evidently not
    literally as vile and perverted as those of Sodom, but still, they had
    the opportunity to deal with God's Son (the "image of the invisible
    God" -- Col 1:15 RSV).  Their exposure to God's power and his loving
    kindness was greater, and thus their rejection was greater.
    
    	You ask what's the point; and the answer simply is that Jesus was
    telling them they had even LESS of an excuse for their failure to
    repent than Sodom had.  Since Jesus himself knew (before Jude wrote it)
    that Sodom had been condemned with "eternal fire", he knew that as a
    literal happening, Sodom would NOT be brought back and shown
    "toleration" in judgment day; his words to those of Chorazin and others
    were simple hyperbole to stress the surity of the judgment against
    them.
    
>Again, it does not fit with the [exaggerated] statement of Christ that
>it would be more tolerable...  They got the same ultimate extinction.
    
    	Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "exageration," since this
    seems to be a point of contention.  To me, it was an "exageration" to
    imply that Sodom would be shown any kind of "toleration" on judgment
    day.  Instead, doesn't it make sense to say that Jesus was using a form
    of irony.  Again, given Sodom's already rendered final judgment, it's
    an ironic, rhetorical point to suggest it would he judged less harshly
    than Chorazin, when it literally received one of the harshest direct
    acts of judgment recorded in the Bible.
    
    	It's true that they got the same ultimate extinction; but it's also
    true (according the Jesus' words) that those of Chorazin were guilty of
    a greater form of rejection of God's righteousness.
    
    * * *
    
    	Regarding your explanation of what the "eye of the needle" was, 
    I think it interesting to find you 'explaining away' such a powerful
    illustration.  I've heard your explanation before, but I agree with the
    less fanciful view (expressed in the footnote in the Oxford Annotated
    RSV that I have) that it was "a proverbial expression denoting human
    impossibility" [ftn. Mark 10:25].  Given the reaction of the disciples,
    and Jesus' words that followed (about things which appear "impossible"
    for man are possible for God), I think the best explanation is to
    accept what Jesus said as a colorful, proverbial figure of speech.
    
    	Nevertheless, you seem to admit that Jesus was using a metaphore,
    and he was obviously describing something that was considered
    impossible.  Because you claimed that my explanation of his words
    caught Jesus in some literal lie (because you chose to take what I
    consider to be the wrong part literally), I raised this illustration to 
    show that any other metaphorical expression of Jesus' might be shown to
    catch him in a lie if the wrong part is taken literally.
    
>Exaggeration is a magnification of a truism to make a point on a relative
>basis.
    
    	Can be ... but exageration can also be of an impossible situation
    to make the contrast all the more obvious.
    
>If they were destroyed "worse", then we could say that Jesus words about
>them were true.  But since they were not, we must assume that (1) Jesus
>words were not true, or (2) Jesus words are not yet fulfilled.  The facts
>in the case do not support your view.
    
    	If you insist on holding the view that there will literally come a
    time when God finds something about Sodom "more tolerable" than 
    Chorazin, then we'll go around on this forever, I guess (or at least
    until judgment day), for it seems plain to me that Jesus was simply
    using a form or rhetoric that made his view that Chorazin deserved
    adverse judgment unmistakably clear.
    
>This is a secondary point.  The primary point being made is that there will
>either be a day of judgement for everyone individually, or everyone
>collectively.  If individually, how does this square with it being more
>tolerable for Sodom than for Korizan?  If collectively, then how does this
>square with your view that people (of Sodom in particular) are dead, gone, and
>vaoprized, not to be resurrected?
    
    	As I already brought up, other scriptures show that the destruction 
    of Sodom is not only considered already final ("eternal fire"), but an
    "example" of the destructive judgment that will befall the world
    contemporay with Christian times for it's refusal to repent when
    clearly confronted with the truth.  Since it's already an example of
    final destructive judgment, the inhabitants of Sodom will receive no
    further hearing in any future judgment to come.  Likewise, those who
    rejected Jesus in his day (like those of Chorazin) will also receive no
    later hearing, for they were judged by Jesus himself at that time.
    
    	As a side point, the Witness view of "Judgment day" is that the
    future holds more than one 'day of judgment.'  The "Great Tribulation"
    and Armaggedon will culminate one "Judgment Day" against the current
    wicked world system.  The Millenium to follow will be another sort of
    "Judgment Day," during which Christ will resurrect both "righteous and
    unrighteous" to human life on earth, and judge them according to their
    deeds during the Millenium.  (During this Millenial judgment day, the
    inhabitants of Sodom will be absent, having already been judged with
    "second death," and thus rendered inelligable for resurrection with an
    opportunity to be judged by Christ as he rules as king.)  Some will
    choose to live righteous lives, and will receive a favorable judgment,
    and others will choose to live unrighteous lives, and thus will receive
    adverse judgment.  According to Revelation, at the end of the
    Millenium, Satan will be let out of the "prison" he'll be in during the
    Millenium, and be given one final chance to "mislead the nations".  Those
    who take his side at that time will also receive the adverse judgment
    of "fire from heaven," and they too will be cast into the figurative
    "lake of fire."
    
    								-mark.

    re .128 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)
    
>What was the comparative basis?  Sodom to Korizan, right?  Korizan is compared
>unfavorably to Sodom, right?  So what is the reult of the comparison?
>You say an exageration.  Jesus said that Sodom will be judged less severely
>than Korizan.  How can this be is Sodom has already been judged?
    
    	The exaggeration [finally spelled it right], or rather, the irony
    is in just what you say:  Sodom HAS already been judged; therefore to
    say that something about its people may be "more tolerable" than the
    about the people of Chorazin means that the people of Chorazin, too,
    have already been judged.  When the future "judgment day" arrives for
    the dead (in Hades) to be resurrected, the dead of Chorazin will be
    passed over, since they are already considered to be cast into the
    "eternal fire" along with Sodom.  If the question comes up as to WHY
    they aren't resurrected (as other "unrighteous" ones will be), since
    they weren't necessarily as perverse as those in Sodom, the answer will
    be that they willfully rejected the Son of God, whereas those in Sodom
    only rejected Lot and God's angels.
    
    	I read the rest of your reply as well, but time doesn't permit
    further reply.  I'll try getting to it tomorrow.
    
    
    								-mark.

      Hi Ace,
    
        Hypothetically, what constitutes God compromising His 
        righteoussness?  If I understand you correctly, if God
        always loves, He is compromising His righteoussness.
        Can you expound?
    
      Hi Mark,
    
        Gee, bro, I really wish you would hesitate to pass the
        judgment that I have based my understanding of God _prior_
        to what the Word says and not _as a result_ of what it
        says.
    
        Why Mark?  How many times do I have to address this?  Call
        me a liar (or deluded) if you will, but please do not question
        my motive.  You do not know my heart.  I do not know my heart.
    
        Only God does.  I believe you are judging my heart.  Leave that
        to God, won't you?
    
        You raise an excellent point as far as Esau is concerned.  There
        is also the verse about God hating the "workers of iniquity."
        Of course, I acknowledge tension with verses such as John 3:16
        and 1 Corin 13 and so many other passages.  I'll address this,
        but this is a topic of its own.
    
        By the way, I have failed to see the aion/aionios part refuted.
        Where might that be?   I honestly don't know.  I sort of lost
        much sense of any contributions by you related to aion when you
        mentioned something about there being a Hebrew (and _not_ a Greek
        OT) which I found ludicrous.  (I suppose there is no english OT
        either - or at least certainly not one to 'bring to the discussion!')
    
        And certainly I am not unaware of the "God of the LIVING" verse.
        Sure, I'll adress this, but (sad to say) its the same litany of
        asking the finite view to explain while not explaining (so often)
        TO the finite view.  DAVID (not his body, but DAVID) is in the
        grave.
    
        Oh yeah, that's right.  David is and always was just his body.
        That's a STRETCH just like the ENORMOUS amount of stretches that
        you simply fail to see.
    
        Well, I'll close.  Again, I ask you to refrain from telling the
        Conference whats going on in my mind/heart.  You simply lack
        the capability but more important, the authority.
    
                                                       Tony                
    

    I'll go you one better, Tony, and refrain from replying to this note.
    Whether you think I'm attempting to look into your heart is not the
    issue.  You have come at this from the wrong premise.  In this I do not
    judge you for being wrong, but judge your premise as causing you to be
    in error.  With that I'll sign off, okay?
    
    Mark S.  This is a sign off here, too.  I have a clearer picture of
    the Jehovah's Witness position and reject it as in error.  The charges
    of "stretching" (which Tony Barbieri first made [yep, again]) are
    applied to your doctrine as well as Tony's.  It is my judgment based on
    my understanding of the Scriptures that you are in error.
    
    I acknowledge that you both necessarily also [counter] judge my
    doctrine to be in error; that comes with the territory.
    
    I think you know me well enough not to back out of an argument lightly.
    But I am getting out of this one.  See you, guys.
    
    Mark M.

re.131 (Tony)

>If I understand you correctly, if God
>        always loves, He is compromising His righteoussness.

No, you do not understand me correctly.

Tony, it's my perception that you don't have room in your heart to receive
anything other than what you already have selected to. To some extent we are all
this way. Creatures of habit I suppose. In any case, I see no useful objective
to engage you in a detailed debate. Firstly, I'm not very good at it. 8*)
Secondly, I'm not trying to convince you really. I pretty sure there is no
room for you to receive anything that disagrees with your fundamental big three
doctrines (extinction, agape, sarx).  

Perhaps one day the Lord will give us an opportunity to meet together face to
face again and we can just enjoy His presence.

regards,
ace

    re .132 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark
    
>    Mark S.  This is a sign off here, too.  I have a clearer picture of
>    the Jehovah's Witness position and reject it as in error.  The charges
>    of "stretching" (which Tony Barbieri first made [yep, again]) are
>    applied to your doctrine as well as Tony's.  It is my judgment based on
>    my understanding of the Scriptures that you are in error.
    
    	I have to laugh (about signing off from this discussion), because
    you beat me to it.  I was thinking the very same thing on the way in to
    work today.
    
>    I acknowledge that you both necessarily also [counter] judge my
>    doctrine to be in error; that comes with the territory.
    
    	Righto ... however, I must say that I too learned something, and
    have a clearer picture of your position.  (Whether it's the position of
    everyone else is left to be said.)
    
    	I will go back and re-read your next to last reply (which I only
    started to reply to) just to wrap up any dangling threads, but
    otherwise, I think closing this thread between you and I (and you and
    Tony) isn't a bad idea.
    
    								-mark.

    re 94.128 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark

>Luke 10:12  But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day
>for Sodom, than for that city.
>
>Perhaps I instead I should ask you "when is the day of judgment that Christ
>refers?"  Is it (a) the day Sodom got torched and the day Korizan will/did "get
>it" (b) some future day that will see its inhabitants judged.

    	To continue an aside from a previous reply of mine, Witnesses
    believe that the Millenium is a "Judgment Day" in a broad sense. The
    role of ancient Biblical judges wasn't just to pass sentence, but
    actually to bring God's people back to a healthy spiritual state.  As
    the one appointed by God to "judge the world in righteousness" (Act
    17:31 RSV) during the Millenium, Jesus will restore mankind [and not
    just an ethnic group, like Abraham's Israelite descendents] to perfect
    spiritual and physical health, and as part of the process, even bring 
    most of the dead back to life.

    	I say most because the Witness view is that Scriptural evidence
    indicates that some have already received an eternal judgment (to
    death) from God.  Those who died in the flood and died at Sodom are
    among those (since these judgments are said to serve as examples of
    eternal judgment against the ungodly).  Those who commit the "sin
    against holy spirit" that Jesus said was unforgiveable are also among
    such ones who will remain dead forever.

    	When the resurrections are completed, the judgment of the
    inhabitants of Sodom and Chorazin will be confirmed in a final way, for
    they will not be among the living (even of the "unrighteous") who are
    given the opportunity to live again via the resurrection.  Since
    [again] the scriptures say Sodom already has been condemned to "eternal
    fire," it's evident that its residents will not be literally raised
    from the dead just to hear God's condemnation of them read aloud one
    final time.  After all those judged so worthy as to receive eternal
    life receive it, the permanant condition of the Sodomites as dead will
    be sufficient proof of their judgment.

>Jude 1:7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like
>manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,
>are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
>
>Are suffering, or will be suffering, or both?  It does NOT say "had suffered"
>does it?  If we take the story of the rich man and Lazarus to be true words of
>Christ, then the rich man already suffers the vengence of eternal fire before
>the judgement day.  Whether this is the final place, or if he will also be then
>thrown into the lake of fire is not pertinent to this argument - the fact that
>he is suffering is pertinent. And so, the residents of Sodom may also indeed
>suffer the vengence of eternal fire outside of this material plane and time
>some thousands of years ago.

    	You'll notice that I've been quoting from the Revised Standard
    Version (RSV) -- a fairly well recognized 'orthodox' translation -- and
    NOT the NWT.  The RSV doesn't say Sodom and Gomorrah is "SUFFERING the
    vengeance of eternal fire," but rather that these cities "serve as an
    example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire".  [The RSV is
    pretty close to the NWT, which says these cities "are placed before us
    as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of
    everlasting fire."]

    	Given that we're using English translations, we end analyzing the
    meaning of the English used in translation.  I see what you are saying,
    but I think you are reading too much present tense into the meaning of
    the word "suffering."  If you read the following sentence (which I've
    made up) in an historical text:

    		The Jews were held as scapegoats for the woes of
    		secular German society in the years after WWI,
    		suffering persecution backed by government
    		sanction.

    you wouldn't say that this sentence says the Jews are STILL being
    persecuted by Nazi-era government, would you?  Isn't it obvious that
    the "suffering" (of persecution) alluded to took place in the past?

    	If a news report read:

    		5 people were injured in a 3 car accident last night,
    		suffering an assortment of broken bones and bruises.

    would we automatically think that today they are still undergoing the
    experience of having their bones broken and their bodies bruised, as
    though they are still experiencing the real-time, as-it-first-happened, 
    trauma of the accident, non-stop?

    	Because you note that the verse doesn't say they "had suffered" (to
    make the sense of past tense unambigous), I gather you are suggesting
    (or asserting) that the people must STILL be consciously suffering the
    effects of God's punishment ; but if that's so, are Sodom and Gomorrah
    also still "GIVING themselves over to fornication," still "GOING after
    strange flesh" [since the scripture doesn't say they "GAVE themselves
    over to fornication... and WENT after strange flesh]?  Really, we know
    the people stopped practicing the things for which they were destroyed 
    when they were destroyed.  Similarly, Jehovah isn't still inflicting
    the trauma of the punishment on those people; it's just that that
    punishment will never be reversed (by granting those people a
    resurrection), and thus their wickedness has been annihilated by
    "eternal fire".
    
    						[concluded next reply ...]

    re 94.128 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark [...continued]

>But how does it INCREASE the guilt, or rather, the consequences so that it
>is "more bearable" for Sodom than Korizan?  This is what Jesus said.

    	I already answered this;  this was simply an expression of irony,
    since there was obviously nothing suffiently bearable (like a mere 10
    righteous men) found in the cities at the time they were destroyed.

>The point is what Jesus said and what we think he means by it.  By
>speaking of ultimate separation from God for whatever sin is committed
>is dodging what Jesus is saying.

    	I disagree (but what else is new?).  You seem to be making the
    notion that something "more tolerable" will be found in Sodom on
    judgment day the central point -- as though Jesus was revealing some
    doctrinal truth about the actual events of judgment day; whereas to me,
    it looks as though Jesus is  simply making the assurance of adverse
    judgment against the people of  Chorazin, et. al., plain, and thus the
    central point.  If you term adverse judgment of those people to be
    "ultimate separation from God," then so be it, but it's hardly a dodge
    to recognize the plain truth that Jesus was really focusing on the fate
    (i.e., judgment) of those to whom he was speaking at the time.

>If Jesus meant "as tolerable" which is very different than [an exagerated]
>"more tolerable", he would have said so.  And you bear the weight of proof to
>the contrary.

    	Figures of speech convey ideas that are really fictional all the
    time; but I'll tell you what ... I'll research it and let you know what
    I find.

>Your bottom line is true to the ultimate extent of rejecting God,
>but diminishes the import of Christ's words on the matter.  

    	It's funny you should say this, because I feel the same way about
    your bottom line -- that is, by assuming Jesus meant something literal
    about some future action of judging those two peoples, you diminish
    what I see as Jesus' far more profoundly spiritual point.   Wickedness
    that is rooted merely in "sins of the flesh" can at least be
    "tolerated" or understood as being rooted in the sinful flesh we've
    inheritted (and can, in fact, be forgiven if one repents of those
    actions), but disbelief of the sort shown by the people who personally
    witnessed God's power through Jesus' "powerful works" is purely an act
    of willful, spiritual defiance to God's undeniable supremacy, and thus
    is a greater sin than a 'sin of the flesh'.  In otherwords, the sins of
    Sodom were gross 'sins of the flesh', but the sins of Chorazin were
    gross 'sins of the spirit'.

    * * *
>judgment day, along with the rich man who spoke to Abraham.

>Luke
>29  Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear
>them.
> 30  And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the
>dead, they will repent.
> 31  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither
>will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    	I believe this was a parable, and thus a symbolic dialogue rather
    than a literal one; but I'll let the matter rest for now.

>Mark 12:26  And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the
>book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of
>Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
> 27  He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore
>do greatly err.

    	I'm not sure why you quote this, but this (given the context of the
    passage) is a proof that the (future) resurrection is a confirmed Bible
    teaching, and that those who deny it fail to have God's own perspective
    (as Creator) on how temporary death is for those who have died faithful
    to him, since God assures their return to life via resurrection.


    								-mark.

      Hi Mark,
    
        I do hope that you can recognize one crucial and fundamental
        distinction...
    
        And that is that questioning WHAT one believes and HOW or WHY 
        one believes are two very different things.
    
        When I said 'stretch', I believe I referred it always to what
        you believe and not to why or how you came to that belief.  I
        do not believe I have ever crossed into addressing how or why
        you believe what you do because that is an area that resides
        (at least in part) in the heart of a person and thus that is an
        area that I discern no right to 'judge.'
    
        Perhaps I am wrong, but my interpretation of your reply is that
        you discussed the WHY and HOW and not the WHAT of my belief.  
        And that really is the core of my problem with the few replies 
        you made that spoke of how (or why) I believe as I do.
    
        I really hope I am communicating this effectively.  I realize I
        do not always communicate well.
    
        Actually, I perceive that I have in the past questioned HOW you
        have come to believe by labeling beliefs as 'traditional' or as
        'popular' thus at least suggesting an inference that I am stating
        that the WHY or HOW is largely preconceived (nonscriptural)
        opinions.
    
        And for this, I do ask forgiveness.  I do not believe it is right
        to judge the heart.
    
        I started a few replies and I don't want to waste them.  So, I
        will finish them up, post them, and exit from here as well.
    
        I hope (and pray and have prayed) that there is some purity in
        my motives.  
    
        "God looketh on the heart!"  ;-)
    
                                                    God Bless,
                                                                  
                                                    Tony

  Hi All,

    I don't have much of any heart to continue either so I will
    very briefly summarize an alternative interpretation to the
    "God of the living" text as well as to my contention that
    "God always loves" (including even Satan) all the while "God
    hates Esau" and "hates all the children of iniquity."

    "God of the living"
    The context of this passage is a discourse between Christ and
    the Sadducees.  The Sadducees were known for their false belief
    that there is no life after death - they did not believe in a
    resurrection (Luke 20:27).  They come to Christ with a story which 
    they felt defended their belief in no life after death.

    Christ responds not by telling them there is life on the basis
    of man being immortal, but rather on the basis of

                              RESURRECTION!!!

    That's what He does!  He says NOTHING about life by virtue of
    anything else save the resurrection.  One would expect that if
    there is any kind of life outside of the resurrection, Christ would
    have straightened out the Sadducees in this regard, but He does not.
    Its' all in the resurrection, "I am the resurrection and the life."

    Now, one might say that Jesus said "He IS the God of the living" and
    referred to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob thus PERHAPS requiring that 
    Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob must now be alive.  But, it would be well to
    see how the Bible can apply the present tense.  Of Abraham, God also
    said "I HAVE MADE thee a father of many nations."  Rom 4:17.  And
    the context of Romans 4 shows that at the time God said this, Abraham
    was not yet the father of many nations, "Who against hope believed
    in hope that he MIGHT BECOME the father of many nations."  Rom 4:18.

    So why does God do this?  Why does He "calleth those things which be
    not as though they were"?  Rom 4:17.

    Because what God promises, He is also able to perform.  Rom 4:21.
    That is, God's Word is so sure that if received, it performs the work
    PERFECTLY.  

    Consider one other thing.  Luke in 20:27 points us to the doctrinal
    error of the Sadducees who do not believe in life after death.  Notice
    how Luke does not mention that the Saducess do not believe in life
    BETWEEN death and the resurrection (though they did not).  Why does
    Luke not mention this?  Surely, if there were life between death and
    resurrection, Luke would mention this alongside resurrection in 20:27.
    But, He does not.  And (as we have seen) when Christ refers to life by
    virtue of resurrection, we thus find the true answer in two ways.  That
    being that there is no life whatsoever between death and resurrection
    as Luke infers by not mentioning the Sadducees as not believing this and
    by Jesus pointing _only_ to the resurrection.

    When studied in context, this "God of the living" text while suppossedly
    defending eternal consciouss torment is actually seen to defend finite
    consciouss torment as well as life as a result of resurrection only.

    So anyway, I hope this is a pretty biblical answer and I do suggest
    that something is amiss when a dear brother such as Ace looks at this
    text and says "Excellent point" (reply .108) and sees NOTHING in the 
    suggestion that Sodom served as an example of the vengeance of 'eternal'
    [aion] fire and that when we want to look at what sin does to the unsaved,
    we can look at what it did to Christ - and that includes duration of
    time.  Now I think THAT'S a couple pretty good points!!!
    
    I'll summarize the God hates Esau thing next.

                                                  Tony

  Hi All,

    Hi Again,
    
    Ok.  The "God hates Esau" reply.  (again, a quick summary.)

    I have studied human love and God's love.  Human wrath and God's wrath.
    Human jealousy and God's jealousy.  And the Word has revealed something
    very important.  That is simply that God's character is described by
    human emotions (love, hate, jealousy, wrath) BUT divine love, hate, 
    jealousy, and wrath simply do not equate to the human.

    The second easiest example (next to love) so far as proof is concerned
    is WRATH.  Romans 1:18-28 clearly defines God's wrath as "giving up"
    after He has been rejected.  This is different than human wrath.

    So that's the gist of it.  Simply that God is not human yet He uses 
    human terminology to speak of His character, but His word expounds on
    what these same words of emotion mean when they are applied to Him and 
    thus are "divine love" and "divine wrath" rather than "human love" and
    "human wrath."

    I have found that God is no respector of persons.  He calls us to love
    our enemies and in so doing to be "perfect even as your father in heaven
    is perfect."  In James 2:2-4, He speaks of not prefering the person 
    with fine clothing to he in  "vile" rags thus alluding in the spiritual
    to _character_.  We also know that "God so loved the world" and while we
    were enemies Christ died for us.  Rom 5.  We also know that Christ is
    the express image of the Father.

    Thus, when I seek through the Word harmony with what God's love is
    coupled with my finding that indeed divine 'whatever' differs from human
    'whatever' (be it love, hate, whatever) I cannot honestly conclude that
    divine hate = human hate.

    I have come to believe that divine hate is an expression that refers to
    the situation where a person has rejected God fully and (in a sense)
    God cannot love the person because that love is repulsed.  Thus so far
    as the relationship between God and that person is concerned, "God hates
    that person."  I do believe God still loves that person, but hate just
    describes that situation where that love is resisted.  "Oh Jerusalem,
    Jerusalem!...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even
    as a hen gathereth her chickens, under her wings, and _ye would not_!"

    Thus, in a a sense God loves all, but in another sense God loved Jacob
    and did not love Esau in that (in this sense) the love pertains to the
    love _received_.

    This is consistent with "God is love" which He is always, without 
    exception.

    Anyway, I hope the above, especially the second part might give credibility
    to my (albeit limited in discernment) contention that what I believe about
    God was/is shaped by the Word.

                                                       God Bless,

                                                       Tony

 >   Notice
 >   how Luke does not mention that the Saducess do not believe in life
 >   BETWEEN death and the resurrection (though they did not).  Why does
 >   Luke not mention this?  Surely, if there were life between death and
 >   resurrection, Luke would mention this alongside resurrection in 20:27.

You make it sound as if we've made an argument from silence, which we have
not.  Jesus' story about the rich man and Lazarus (the beggar), whether parable 
or not tells a story about life BETWEEN death and resurrection.  Why 
would he do so rather than us some other "parable" to illustrate whatever
it is you might think it illustrates?

>    Surely, if there were life between death and
>    resurrection, Luke would mention this alongside resurrection in 20:27.
>    But, He does not. 

Supposition based on your doctrinal stance.

>    I have come to believe that divine hate is an expression that refers to
>    the situation where a person has rejected God fully and (in a sense)
>    God cannot love the person because that love is repulsed.  Thus so far
>    as the relationship between God and that person is concerned, "God hates
>    that person."  I do believe God still loves that person, but hate just
>    describes that situation where that love is resisted.  "Oh Jerusalem,
>    Jerusalem!...how often would I have gathered thy children together, even
>    as a hen gathereth her chickens, under her wings, and _ye would not_!"

An interesting way you've come to describe what it means for "divine hate".
You would suggest here that Jesus hated Jerusalem because of their rejection.

I'll just disagree and say that God did not err in using human language
to say what he meant.  Yes, He has divine hatred, which is pure and
uncorrupted, but I'd stop short of saying that it means something other
than emanating from God.  God hates this or that.  To say that our
rejection (that is emanating from us) is what is meant is too much of
a strech for me.

>    Anyway, I hope the above, especially the second part might give credibility
>    to my (albeit limited in discernment) contention that what I believe about
>    God was/is shaped by the Word.

I believe you, Tony, that you believe you have formed these doctrines based
on the Word.  But I also believe (rightly or wrongly) that you've come to
the wrong conclusion based on some [non]traditional influences.

Mark

Tony,

I have some catching up to do, and other pressures, but I have extracted 
this string to go over.  You seem to be very busily persuading yourself 
here again!!! - if no-one else....!

							Andrew

    re .140 (TOKNOW::METCALFE)/Mark

    Pardon me for jumping in ...

>You make it sound as if we've made an argument from silence, which we have
>not. Jesus' story about the rich man and Lazarus (the beggar), whether parable 
>or not tells a story about life BETWEEN death and resurrection.  Why 
>would he do so rather than us some other "parable" to illustrate whatever
>it is you might think it illustrates?

    The scriptures DO state that Jesus "did not speak to them [the public]
    without a parable" (Mark 4:34a RSV), only explaining things outright
    "privately ... to his own disciples" (34b); and since the story of
    Lazarus and the rich man was told within earshot of the Pharisees (Luke
    16:14ff), it's certainly in keeping with Jesus' habit of using parables
    to consider this story a parable as well. As you know, Jesus himself
    didn't explain the meaning of his words, and no other Bible writer did
    either, so no one can say definitively *why* Jesus chose this
    particular way to get his point across; it simply stands that he did.

    Although I'm no great scholar of Jewish writings, I have done a little
    reading on Rabbinic tradition, and I've been left with the definite
    impression that the Rabbis often taught lessons using stories that were
    obvious fictions, but which were fictions which often contained an
    element of irony which could be applied back in the 'real world'.  [I
    guess you could say they were like fables.]  In these stories, the
    facts (or details of the setting) are not as significant as the moral
    of the story.  Since the Pharisees were probably advocates of this
    style of teaching, Jesus could have been teaching them a lesson in the
    fashion of their own traditional teaching style.  [This, of course, is
    only my own theory.]

    In the OT, and in Revelation, symbolic settings and dialogues are used
    to convey prophetic points which do not, in and of themselves,
    represent real conversations, real events, or real places.  They may
    symbolize real events, but the symbolism needs to be 'decoded' before
    it's given a real-world application.  Most of these symbolic stories
    were conveyed in dreams and visions, but there isn't any Biblical
    reason (that *I* know of) that prevents us from believing that Jesus
    himself used this form of symbolic speech when teaching in public.

    Maybe someday we can talk about what the account of Lazarus and the
    rich man means (to each of us), but to get back to your original
    question, to answer "why" Jesus said what he did requires us all to
    answer according to our individual "doctrinal stance".  What you say to
    Tony,

>Supposition based on your doctrinal stance.

    cuts both ways.  You are willing to suppose Jesus is speaking literally
    because it fits into the doctrinal framework of life-after-death-with-
    eternal-conscious-torment that you believe in.  You take elements of
    certain passages which allude to punishment for the wicked as literal
    absolutes, and thus conclude the wicked are aware of their eternal
    punishment, and discount the passages which speak of death as a state
    where no consciousness exists.  On the otherhand, Tony and I view the
    passages which state that death is NOT a conscious state as absolute,
    and thus view the various punishment passages as containing less
    literally absolute, figurative elements.  We're BOTH making
    'suppositions' based on how we juxtapose and explain the same passages
    of scripture.
    
>... tells a story about life BETWEEN death and resurrection.
    
    We can agree on this; but you'd probably also have to agree that in the
    Scriptures, "life" and "death" have figurative applications as well;
    the literal dead may be considered "alive" because of the assured hope
    of the resurrection, and the literal living may be viewed as "dead"
    because of a spiritually dead 'way of life.'  Since Jesus was about to
    inaugurate a system of belief and worship that would 'kill' the old way
    of worship and bring to life a new one, it certainly was in keeping
    with the time for Jesus to allude to the up-and-coming spiritual death
    of Pharisaic worship and the spiritual resurrection to life of the
    'spiritual beggars' who were favored (as Christians) to represent God,
    but who were once looked down upon by the self-professed, 'spiritually
    rich' Pharisees (et. al.).

    								-mark.

      Hi,
    
        Again, Lazarus is a story in itself.
    
        I still find it immensely significant that when Luke decides
        to explain the false position of the Sadducee's, he states 
        that they do not believe in the resurrection.  When Jesus
        explains that there is life after death, He does so on the 
        basis of the _resurrection_.  NO MENTION (not an ounce of 
        inference) of life outside the resurrection!!!
    
        In addition, Paul in Romans 4 clearly portrays God as calling
        things which be not as though they did.
    
        These are very plain notions.  If I did believe the eternal 
        consciouss view (or conscioussness between death and resurrection
        view) I would be perplexed that Luke did not include mentioning
        that the Sadducee's did not believe in life between death and
        resurrection and I would be perplexed that Jesus only ascribed
        life (when speaking to the Sadducee's) to the resurrection.
    
        Certainly, Mark, the scripture standing alone simply does not
        say anything regarding supporting your view when considering
        the above (including the contribution of Romans 4) and I for
        one would welcome acknowledgement of that fact from you or Ace
        or whatever just as I acknowledged after Andy's contribution 
        about Satan in Ezekiel that I could not insist that it necessarily
        supported my view.
    
        That would do a lot for my perception of the 'spirit' of our 
        dialogue.  I honestly expect that 'spirit' in a dialogue such as
        this.  (In fact the spirit behind our dialogue is probably the
        most important thing.)
    
        Thanks Mark for your Lazarus contributions.  There is nothing
        sinful about taking a common story and developing a truth within
        it provided the discerning heart can know what is 'storyteling'
        and what is a nugget of truth within it which Jesus is trying to
        convey.  No doubt He has veiled Himself in His Word.  He
        speaks like Joseph did with his brothers.  (Appears rough and
        sounds strange unto them.)  (Please, I'm making no judgment on
        discernment here/just a general thread woven in scripture.)
    
        As to my 'Esau' explanation.  Again, its my understanding.  I
        simply have a personal understanding that divine wrath and love
        and all other emotions differ as far from their human 'counter-
        parts' as God differs from sinful humanity.  My study of love
        and wrath and how it contrasts between the divine and the human
        is so plain to me.  Romans 1 speaks of a wrath (divine) that is
        so remote from human wrath.
    
        So, given the above as well as believing God *IS* love (always
        because that is what He is) I simply cannot take the definition
        of human hate and maintain that it is an aspect of God's character
        ever.
    
        Whether you agree or not...do you understand what I am trying 
        to say?
    
        At this point, the most important thing to me though is the spirit
        of our dialogue.  I truly would have a hard time if we can't 
        acknowledge once in awhile a certain text as not so supportive 
        of our position as we might have thought.  Certainly the conver-
        sation between Christ and the Sadducee's cannot be considered a
        text wherein it stands alone as solid proof that Abraham, Isaac,
        and Jacob are now living on the basis that Jesus said "He IS the
        God of the living."  Not when Romans 4 and the _100%_ focus on
        RESURRECTION as the guarantee of LIFE are taken into account.
    
        It would (for me) be a breath of fresh air if such acknowledgement
        could be made.
    
                                               See Ya and God Bless,
               
                                               Tony

    re .145 (ICTHUS::YUILLE)/Andrew [...continued]

>Jesus was not just 'a' rabbi; He is God, complete and perfect; holding all 
>things together until the time comes for judgement.  When He warned the 
>Pharisees against their love of money (Luke 16:14-15), and went on to 
>emphasise the immutability of God's law (v17), He wasn't about to 
>illustrate His point with fantasy.

    	Prior to the comment that the Pharisees were "lovers of money",
    Luke records that Jesus was making a point about spiritual
    accountability, using literal fiscal accountability as an example.

    		"He who is faithful in a very little is faithful
    		also in much; and he who is dishonest in a very
    		little is dishonest also in much.  If then you
    		have not been faithful in unrighteous mammon [riches].
    		who will entrust to you the true [spiritual] riches?
    		And if you have not been faithful in that which is
    		another's, who will give you that which is your own?
    		No servant can serve two masters ... You cannot serve 
    		God and mammon [riches]." (16:10-12,13b RSV)

    It's true that Jesus was making a point about the outcome of those who
    are enslaved to literal riches, but he was also making a point about
    who would be entrusted with "true riches", namely spiritual riches, and
    how God was going to judge the spiritual leaders, the 'spiritually
    rich' of Israel, for failing to excercise this more fundamental charge 
    in a faithful way.

    	As Jesus said on another occasion, the major problem of the
    Pharisees wasn't that they were negligent in adhering to the letter of
    the law (for they gave a tenth of even the smallest herbs, ref. Luke
    11:42), but rather, they lacked a proper sense of "justice" and "love
    for God" (Luke 11:42; "justice, mercy, and faith," Matt 23:23 RSV). The
    Pharisees, "lovers of money" that they were, did, in fact, take care of
    poor people.  In fact, rather than being like the rich man of Jesus'
    parable who ignored the beggar, they considered alms-giving a way of
    accruing righteousness, thus they, of all people, would probably be the
    LEAST likely of being literally guilty of ignoring a beggar in their
    very gate.  According to Jesus' criticism, they were evidently very
    good at keeping up external appearances, but needed to "give alms for
    those things which are within" (Luke 11:41 RSV), namely spiritual
    things, or the things of the heart, soul, and mind.

    	The name "Lazarus" is a form of the Hebrew name "Elazar," or
    Eleazar, which means "God has helped."  By their tradition of
    alms-giving, the Pharisees may have thought that they were, in fact,
    helping the poor; but Jesus showed that the poor that God was most
    concerned with were the "poor in spirit" (Matt 5:3 RSV), and that the
    Pharisees weren't properly taking care of the 'spiritual poor' [the
    crowds were "harassed and helpless" (RSV)/"skinned and thrown about"
    (NWT) "like sheep without a shepherd" (Matt 9:36 RSV)]; and thus God
    would have to help them more directly [which he did through Christ, the
    "chief Shepherd" (1Pet 5:4 RSV)].

    	The story Jesus told, if not taken literally, wasn't a baseless
    "fantasy", but rather, a scathing, symbolic portrayal of the spiritual
    condition of the people ('clergy' and 'laity' of the day), and how the
    up and coming death and resurrection of Jesus himself was going to
    result in a major, irreversible, shift in the spiritual 'status quo' of
    God's people.  The self-appointed 'spiritually rich' [who sat on
    "Moses' seat" (Matt 23:2 RSV)] would be considered dead, and the lowly
    people ["the uneducated, common men" (Acts 4:13 RSV); the people taken
    from among those whom the Pharisees and priests despised as ones who
    "do not know the law [and] are accursed" (John 7:49 RSV)], would become
    favored.

    	Real life would, of course, go on for both peoples; but the
    rejected 'spiritually rich' would only receive spiritual torments,
    whereas the once 'spiritually poor' would reside in spiritual favor.
    There's really nothing inconceivable about the symbolism; other than it
    being hard to imagine at the time that such a dramatic reversal of
    spiritual roles was about to take place.

    							-mark.

    Hmmm.... I find it rather humorous that major participants in this note
    have stated they were through entering replies in here, and that was
    over .. um... [scratching head] 5 or so notes ago.
    
    Is it safe to assume that who ever enters the last note won? :-)
    
    sigh,
    Nancyd

    re 94.148 (JULIET::MORALES_NA)
    
>    Is it safe to assume that who ever enters the last note won? :-)
    
    	Yeah ... *that's* the ticket!  Whoever enters the last note gets
    saved.

      Hi Again,
    
        Mark (Metcalfe), my concern remains.  It is not what we believe
        but the 'spirit' in our replies, our heart-attitude.
    
        When you entered the "God IS the God of the living" text, correct
        me if I am wrong but you asserted it as standing on its own weight
        principally because you expected they (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob)
        must now be alive.
    
        I made a reply wherein I essentially did two things.  One, I showed
        how _context_ placed absolutely no regard to 'life between death
        and resurrection' and how it placed 100% emphasis to 'life as a 
        result of resurrection'.  The text did so two ways.  Luke mentions
        how the Sadducees do not believe in resurrection, but he never
        mentions them not believing in life between death and resurrection.
        Jesus corrects the Sadducee's position of no life after death by
        referring exclusively to resurrection.  The second thing I did was
        apply Romans 4 where God definitely states things as already accom-
        plished not on the basis of them being already accomplished but
        rather on the basis of God's Word being sure.
    
        After my reply I expected (assuming a certain 'spirit' of dialogue)
        some acquiescence.  Just some acknowledgement that this passage had
        not the weight to stand on its own in defense of your position as
        you previously thought it had.  (I did exactly the same when I
        replied to Andy about his explanaiton of the Ezekiel verse about
        Satan).
    
        Actually, I take it that you indirectly acknowledged that the
        passage didn't carry the weight you previously thought it did
        because you found a need to add Lazarus as support - in other words
        it apparently did not stand on its own two legs - which it does
        not.
    
        Anyway, this is of biggest concern to me actually.  Are you blind
        to what I am trying to say?  What do you think?
    
                                                        Tony

    I guess I win, cuz I'm the last one here [today],
    and ha! I wasn't even part of the discussion.
    
    Nancy

At first when you said 'the last one', I thought you meant the one previous 
to *that* reply.  So I looked, and saw it was Mark S., so decided not after 
all (sorry Mark ;-)

							Andrew

    Andrew,
    
    You sly ol' ginger haired fox... 
    
    :-) :-)

==============================================================================
Note 94.150  YIELD::BARBIERI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   Are you blind to what I am trying to say?  What do you think?

I have seen your arguments. It might be better to assume that I am
deaf to it, now, Tony.   I have been trying not to be drawn into
more arguments and  broke my silence against my better judgment
because it is only adding to the continuance of the argument.  In
light of the more important news in  6.*, among several other factors,
I've got less and less desire to continue the merry-go-round.

Ace said it best, methinks. (from 94.133)

"Secondly, I'm not trying to convince you really. I pretty sure
there is no room for you to receive anything that disagrees with
your fundamental big three doctrines (extinction, agape, sarx)."

So pardon me for being uncharacteristically non-combative, please.

Mark M.

I regret. I don't have the time to repeat discussions here that have gone
on for a number of versions.  We know each other's position (at least
pretty much as far as we're going to through this medium).  Various
commitments don't permit me to contribute to the extent I'd like to - let
alone to the extent this sort of discussion demands.  I've been looking for
the time to get back to you, Mark S., on your reply to mine, which I
thought overlooked my basic points.  However, maybe sometime.... When we've
all forgotten... 

							Andrew

    
    I am a read only, but I have a question taht has often bothered me...
    It may seem very naive, but anyways...
    
    Of all the millions (billions, really) of people on this earth, only a
    small portion could be considered saved.   I can understand that those
    who have chosen to ignore the message of God are rightfully considered
    unsaved, but it seems unjust somehow, to doom the soul of a person who
    has never even been exposed to the concept of christianity. 
    
    How does this get resolved?
    Thanks.

    Well, I was hoping someone else would come in here before me so's I
    could get that 158 snarf... but..
    
    Hi Donna!
    
    Do you remember the story of Cain and Abel?  Cain killed his brother
    out of jealousy and God banished him from the Garden and *marked* his
    people.  
    
    The Bible also states that whoever murders, his life is required of
    him.  So why did God not kill Cain?
    
    He didn't kill Cain because the law had not been disseminated to man at
    that time.  Our God is a *just* God, a *righteous* God.  He could not
    by his very nature require of Cain consequences that had not been
    established.  
    
    I also believe that my righteous God will not reject those whom have
    NEVER had a chance to hear the Gospel.  
    

    Noah's son, Ham, was also marked.

    minor nit: man was already banished from the Garden when Cain entered
    the story.
    
    :-)
    
    (my cats, named Cain and Abel, are watching me write this... :-)

Hi Donna (if that's the right name?)

The fate of those who never hear the gospel...
This is a good question, which concerns many people.  God does give the 
answer in the Bible, most clearly I find in Psalm 19 and in Romans 1.

Psalm 19:1-4

 "The heavens declare the glory of God;
    the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
  Day after day they pour forth speech
    night after night the display knowledge
  There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
    Their voice goes out to the ends of the world..."

Romans 1:19-
 "What may be known about God is plain to [all mankind], because God has 
  made it plain.  For since the creation of the world, God's invisible 
  qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly 
  seen, being understood from what is made, so that men are without excuse..."

These passages say that the heart of God is evident in all creation.
For instance:

	- His perfection can be seen in the way that nature is so well 
	  balanced, the trees, flowers, and other plants perfectly 
	  fulfil their part in the cycle of balancing the environment, with 
	  the animal life bringing forth each of its own kind, maintaining 
	  the status quo.  

	- His love can be seen in the fact that the natural (God-given)
	  environment around us is beautiful.  It gives us pleasure to 
	  look at the delicacy of flowers, the majesty of great trees, the 
	  variety of them, and of animals, the beauty of our own design, 
	  which makes the normal progress of 'survival' a positive 
	  pleasure, rather than painful endurance, or even an empty drudge.

	- His power can be seen in the way all things continue from 
	  generation to generation.  The seasons follow in order, which 
	  brings out the harvest needed each year, the sun, powerful in 
	  brightness beyond our eyesight, each day brings light and warmth, 
	  while at night it is hidden so that our bodies can 'switch off, 
	  and relax in rest.  The stars [and moon] give a mild gentle 
	  light, which relieves the total blackness, yet does not 
	  (usually!) break into our rest.

I could go on and on there ;-), but the point is that all of mankind has 
the evidence before him - shouting out from the world we live in - to tell 
about God.

In everyone's heart there is sin, which we are aware of as a shortfalling 
against our design.  It's as if there's a point where God has said "I've 
given you your body, mind, intelligence, etc - now what are you going to 
put in it?"  And all of us have 'inherited' in side, the bent part of our 
nature; the part which we are aware does not match up to the perfection of 
the design around us - and even present in our bodies.

We also have a certain appetite for God.  That this is universal is clear 
from Ecclesiastes 3:11, where it says that God has created eternity in the 
heart of man.  Everyone has an appetite for God, though we all quench it to 
some extent with other 'things'.  But the most hardened atheist has only 
covered it up; not actually eliminated it.  Before God, he will not be 
able to say "You left me at a disadvantage by not telling me."

I understand from the passages above that God is saying : 
"I've given you unmistakable pointers for you to recognise.  To recognise 
your need for My perfection, and to recognise that My love will not 
jettison you as rubbish, if you seek Me."

The evidence of God is before everyone.  He only asks us to respond to what 
He reveals to us of Himself.  No more, but no less!

Someone who responds to a superficial level of awareness of God, has their
heart prepared to respond to the next prompt that He gives.  I see this as
effective throughout our spiritual development, into positive salvation as
we learn of Jesus' sacrifice, moving into sanctificatoin as we draw ever
nearer to Him.  There are various verses which indicate this.  I find Luke
7:29-30 very helpful.  It shows how their response to John the Baptist's
message determined the direction of heart, of both those who were repentant
and accepted the LORD Jesus, and those whose heart were hard. 

To me, this says that the Judge of all the earth does right, not only where 
we can see, but also where we cannot see (the flower unseen to all mankind, 
blooming on a remote mountain, is not less beautiful that the one which is 
selected for a special display).  He has not lost sight of the aborigine or 
the technologist.  Each sees a special view of God's design.  His hand has 
not slipped from the still-born child, nor from the baby destroyed in the 
womb.  The possibility of awareness of God's care may seem remote for such 
a one, but I firmly believe that God sees something even there.

The awareness of the method of salvation is not a criteria for salvation, 
as we can see from Hebrews 11, where many Old Testament saints, who never 
saw the LORD Jesus at Calvary were saved by faith - a faith which 
recognised God's character, and knew that He would provide the sacrifice.
However, our response to the awareness of the method of salvation is a
criteria for salvation, because it further reveals where our hearts stand.

I'm, passing the recommended line limit, so I'll stop, but the subject
fills me with delight at the total provision of the love of our God.  I
hope this is helpful! 

							God bless
								Andrew

re.156 Donna,

	Good questions.

	Romans 2:13-15: (for it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous
before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when Gentiles, who
have no law, do by nature the things of the law, these, though they have no law,
are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience bearing withness with it and their reasonings, one with the
other, accusing ot even excusing them) 

	Donna, somewhere in here is the answer to your question. I'm not sure I
can exactly explain it but I'll try! 8*)

	The Apostle Paul is saying here that even Gentiles have the law in their
conscience. And doers of law shall be justified. Someone who has never heard the
gospel but lives according to his conscience will be judged accordingly. God is
a righteous judge. We can rest assured that God will not judge unrighteously. I
think we can also safely say that someone who hears the gospel and rejects it is
going against their conscience and will be judged accordingly as an unbeliever
and a law breaker in their conscience. So it seems (and this is just my opinion)
that those Gentiles who have never heard the gospel but lived according to their
conscience probably would have accpeted the gospel if they had the opportunity
to hear it. And those Gentiles who don't live according to their conscience
would have rejected the gospel had they heard it. For the receiving of the
gospel is related to the conscience in the heart of the hearer. But this is my
speculation only. No one but God knows what would have happened. 

	Nevertheless, we need to be assured in our own hearts that God is a
righteous judge in every way. 

	Secondly, the new earth is populated with Gentiles. Rev 21:24 These
Gentiles came from the 1000 year reign of Christ. *Perhaps* God will include
these Gentiles who never heard the gospel but lived according to their
conscience. We can't know for sure how God will deal with these ones
specifically but at least a possiblity exists.

Regards,
Ace 

    
    Just a small comment with no time for a quick response (I'm at a
    custome rsite for several months).
    
    We are all deserving of hell.  God has many attributes and we know He
    is just.  Until a person comes to terms with and accepts what God says
    about our nature (its depravity and our joy in fullfilling it), s/he
    will find it hard to come to terms with the billions who die without
    salvation
    
    there is another point too.  If you are Arminian in theology you will
    focus on man's opportunity or will to choose and lament how unfair God
    seems to be.  If you are Calvinistic in theology you will focus on
    God's will to choose men (and maybe still lament that God is unfair). 
    I suggest that for those truly seeking an answer to this type of
    quetions spend some good time with Reformed theology.  You'll get a
    much more satisfying answer.
    
    jeff

Talking about itching ears mine were burning this morning -).

I have no difficulty with what Patricia has said however I
would just like to clarify a few things. First of all Jehovah's
Witnesses do believe in hell or sheol but as Patricia pointed
out not as a place of torment or hellfire if you like. The Bible
shows that both the good and the bad go there upon death, this
was true of Jesus God's Son (compare Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:27,31).
Does it seem reasonable that God would torture both the righteous
and unrighteous in a place of torment including his own Son whom
he dearly loves?. Hell simply put is the "common graveyard of mankind"
introduced by Adam's rebellion.

There is much confusion over hell because Bible translators rendered
"Hades", "Sheol" and "Gehenna" by the same English word hell.

re 728.106 "Jesus speaks of hell"

Jim, with the scriptures you quoted you would also have take into
consideration Matthew 13:34,35 KJV "All these things spake Jesus
unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not
unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet,
saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which
have been kept secret from the foundation of the world."

Now when speaking to the crowds he spoke only in parables or illustrations.
This was fulfillment of prophecy. Take for example Matthew 10:28 that
you quoted. The Greek word translated as hell is Gehenna, Jesus' audience
could relate to this for Gehenna was a rubbish tip in Jerusalem that
was kept continually burning. Those not fit for burial such as murderers
were tossed onto this tip after there execution. The thing is if you 
take Jesus' words to the crowd as literal then you will lose the meaning
of the message that Jesus was conveying.

re 728.111

Paul, God is a righteous judge yes?, For example, we have the judgement
that the Israelites had to carry out under a Theocracy that "eye for eye" 
or "life for life". Now what crime befits "eternal torment"?. 


re 728.104

;    I guess Satan has duped many.

Mike, Paul's words confirm what you have said:

"In their case the god of this world has blinded, the minds of the
 unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of
 the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God." 2 corinthians 4:4 RSV

This is often attributed to those that don't believe in God. However, it
could also be attributed to the Jews in Paul's day. They had a belief in
God but were blinded from seeing the gospel of Christ.

The teaching of hellfire often turns people away from learning more about
Christ and God because they find it in conflict with the teaching of
a loving and just God.

Moderators please feel free to move my reply to an appropriate note. Just
wanted to clarify a couple of things.

Phil.


 

>"this is the second death". Revelation is full of sybolism
>therefore as a Bible student one would want to understand
>the "second death" to which this portion of scripture is
    
    Revelation is written using "code" found previously in the Bible that
    is meant to be taken literally.  Where new "code" is introduced, John
    under the Holy Spirit explains it.  Where it is meant to be taken
    figuratively, John under the Holy Spirit says so (i.e., "...and I saw a
    sign..." is a blatant giveaway).
    
    Mike

      Hi Andrew,
    
        Not so small nit.  The lost are destroyed by the brightness 
        of His coming, not the darkness of His leaving.
    
        Unveiling His love will do the trick.  "But, when the
        commandment came, sin revived, and I died."
    
        When the mirror of James is held up, the lost will respond to
        its revelation of their sin with despair and it will destroy
        them.
    
        Again...its the _coming_ of His character that arouses a reve-
        lation of their sin and causes their destruction.  Not the
        withdrawel of God.
    
        The lost are destroyed by the fire and the righteoue shine like
        the sun.   Matthew somewhere.
    
        Those verses are right next to each other.  Contextually, the
        fire is the same.
    
    							Tony
    
        

re .126

;I'm not quite clear on your point about judgement, Phil.  As you imply, 
;God's standard is absolute, which is why it takes Jesus' sacrifice to 
;purchase our salvation.  And, as you also point out, Sodom and Gomorrah 
;were destroyed, in spite of Abraham's pleading, because he did not
;understand the standards of righteousness.  His knowledge of God, from his
;experience to date, omitted a large aspect of God's character, which God
;was then to teach him. The heaven God has for us is a place of perfection,
;which is why He is perfecting those who will be there. ie - he has said
;that the LORD Jesus will judge all mankind.  Therefore we should understand
;what that judgement implies.

Andrew,

My personal view is that perhaps Abraham had concerns for righteous Lot,
but this is speculation on my part. God made a way out for Lot just as
there is a way out when Jesus comes to judge for not all receive adverse
judgment when Jesus separates the sheep and goats. Abraham was right in
thinking that God is loyal to his servants.

But you certainly are correct in saying "we should understand what that
judgment implies" for it certainly will come on this world and the stakes
are high for all. The difference between our interpretations appears to
be it is matter of "eternal life in heaven or eternal life in a fiery hell"
to a matter of "life or death" death being lifeless, unconscious and life
being everlasting life. 

Thank you for allowing me to share my view on this.

Phil.

Often Jesus' judgment message was that of destruction.
For example, Matthew 7:13,14 KJV:

"Enter ye in the strait gate: for wide is the gate,
and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait
is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto
life, and few there be that find it."

An illustration we can all relate to. One can walk the
narrow road that leads to life. At some point one will
reach the crossroads were everlasting life is granted.
What about those that walk the wide road, it should figure
that at some point those who walk this road will be
destroyed. Now the hellfire teaching is in conflict
with this, for it teaches that persons are kept alive
to undergo painful punishment and therefore will not
reach the point in were they are destroyed.

How do you reconcile destruction with the hellfire teaching?.

Phil.

      re: .130
    
      Hi Garth,
    
        Yeah, the beast is there.  So SYSTEMS burn, huh?  The beast is
        a kingdom.
    
        I think it would be wise (wise as in scriptural) to study the
        Bible like Isaiah 28 says so.  Error, of course, will desire
        to suppress studying the Bible as the Bible tells us to study
        it.
    
        Anyway Garth, I can point you to several uses of "forever" in
        the OT that describe events of obvious finite time duration.
        Isaiah 28 tells me to include those.  Error says to exclude those.
        BTW, those OT texts are rendered in the LXX with the same Greek
        word that is used in the NT texts.
    
        I also noticed that you passed over the fire texts I provided.
    
        I agree with you Garth...if you choose to study scripture by
        omitting texts with the same word usages, you will go far in 
        defending your belief.  
    
        And if you choose to study the Bible like the Bible instructs
        us to study it, you will not go very far at all.
    
    						Tony

      re: .140
    
      I have a problem with this.
    
      The Bible says the lost are destroyed by His coming, not His
      leaving.  How do you integrate separation into this?
    
      God's love awakens a full revelation of sin which destroys.
      Fire is God's character fully unveiled.
    
      By the lost's choice, God is separated from their hearts.  But,
      God is coming NEAR TO THEM and not separating from them and this
      mirror of James arouses the full destructive fury of sin.
    
      In .128 or .129, I provided the Isaiah text which clearly states
      that it is the righteous who dwell in the everlasting burnings.
    
      Your theology SHOULD embrace all of scripture.
    
      The need to incorporate a part of scripture and not all of it
      implies (to me) defense of error.  Truth can accomadate all of it.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

re 737.102

Garth,

Having read through this note string, there appears to be two issues between
us 1) reward for finite works 2) what is meant by eternal torment in Rev 20:10.

Now to tackle the first one, you have totally lost me over the years on your 
reasoning on "eternal life" and "eternal torment. Your comment in 94.109 
emphasises my confusion.

P>I am not calling into question God's definition of justice, I'm just asking
P>what is God's definition of justice in regard to the teaching of hellfire?.

G>It is that the people that end up there for eternity deserve it.

Now the "free gift" God gives of "eternal life" comes about through his
grace, no?. It is not something that we can earn with good works. It is
through the *undeserved* kindness of God that one has the hope of
everlasting life. You can see my confusion when you say people who go to 
a fiery hell deserve it, for those who will receive evelasting life will
have not deserved it through their finite works. Eternal life is not 
a reward for finite works. Therefore, I'm not sure I understand your line 
of reason and the point you are trying to make, for following the same
reasoning eternal hellfire cannot be the reward for finite works.

It is important to meditate on God's grace, for it shows one how loving
and merciful their God is and draws one to Him.

I'll look at the Greek word translated as "torment" in my next reply. 

Phil.

In note 94.83 I asked if anyone knew the meaning of the Greek word translated
as "tormented" in Revelation 20:10. This was back in 14th April 1993 so I
understand if no one remembers the original question -).

The Greek word used for "torment" is basani'zo. The New Thayer's Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament, gives the primary meaning to be "to test (metals)
by the touchstone" a sceondary meaning is "To question by applying torture".
Now in context with what is happening to Satan, this judgment will be a
touchstone for all eternity. A precedent will have been set for those who
oppose Jehovah's Soveignty and the rightness of His rule. Everyone, would
know the results of rebelling against God as we experience today.  A challenge
to God's sovereign rule would not need to be tested over an extended period
of time to be proved wrong and judgment could be meted out straight away.

Further, the related word basanistes' "tormentor" is used in the Bible to mean
"jailor" (compare Matthew 18:34). As other notes have shown there is no
escape for those who enter the "lake of fire", it is like a jail that never
releases it's captives. Also in the Greek Septuagint, the related word
ba'sanos is used to refer to humilation that leads to death (Ezekiel 32:24,30).

Looking at the original Greek helps us to see what punishment Satan undergoes.
That is humilating, everlasting death. It shows the fullness of his destruction
for *all* his works die with him for as 1 John 3:8 KJV reads "He that
committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For
this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works
of the devil."

The "lake of fire" is a fitting symbol of total destruction, for Satan and his
works will be totally destroyed By Jesus Christ. No?.

Phil.


Reference material "Revelation Its Grand Climax at Hand!" p294

   Please explain Luke 16:19-31, specifically verse 24.







   Jim

re .176

Jim,

I suppose your reply was addressed to myself. We have
discussed the Rich Man and Lazarus parable in the C-P 
conference in the past. Notes that touched on this were
768.33,.37,.43 and another topic with notes of mine
on this parable are found in 974.50,.86,.92 & .97.

To give a succint answer on verse 24. Why a parable?,
Jesus only spoke to the crowds in parables (Matthew 13:34,35).
There were two classes of people listening to Jesus'
parable, the rich man pictured the religious leaders.
These previously had a supposedly approved standing.
Now Jesus' judgment messages were tormenting them and
they wanted a little drop of "water" to cool down this
judgment message. They are told no for they have "Moses
and the prophets" to point them to Jesus and repentance.
They are not even persuaded to repent when Jesus rises 
from the dead.

We know that Jesus tormented the religious leaders so much
that they wanted him dead.

What do you learn from Luke 16:19-31? 

Phil.  

    Phil, you can't just mediatate on God's gift of grace.  It has to be 
    received and accepted.
    
    regards,
    Mike

    The subjects in parables don't have names.  Luke 16 is not a parable.

    re: -1
    
    That is poor exegesis.  It is possible that one parable has a name.
    I don't see scripture explicitly disallowing this.
    
    It kind of reminds me of the argument posed against the idea that
    using instruments in church is wrong because it was never done.
    
    Whats the big deal if Jesus used a name one time in His parables?
    
    How does one prove conclusively that this cannot be possible?
    
    						Tony

>    That is poor exegesis.  It is possible that one parable has a name.
>    I don't see scripture explicitly disallowing this.
    
    It's also poor exegesis to assume what's not there.  Find another one
    that has proper nouns in it.
    
>    It kind of reminds me of the argument posed against the idea that
>    using instruments in church is wrong because it was never done.
    
    not a problem to those that know a little about the culture of Christ's
    day and the early church.
    
>    Whats the big deal if Jesus used a name one time in His parables?
    
    It's not really because parables were used by Christ to present
    *TRUTH*.
    
>    How does one prove conclusively that this cannot be possible?
    
    Examine the patterns of all the parables and find another one where the
    subjects have names.
    
    Mike

>What do you learn from Luke 16:19-31? 


 A fiery hell is quite real and "Today is the day of salvation"

Re: .174  (Phil)

If the "eternal reward vs. non-eternal punishment" dilemma as I posed it
continues to go over your head, then I won't press that issue with you
anymore.  It was not meant to justify the existence of hell.  Rather, it 
was only meant to expose the hypocrisy of those who in principle advocate 
eternal reward yet oppose eternal punishment.

It is God's word, and not human reasoning that determines whether or not 
there is an eternal hell.

      Lazarus and the rich man has been debated for so long that
      I tire of it.
    
      So much could be said, but I'll just say the following.
    
      If all of Christ's parables are examined, there are parts to
      many of them that are obviously not true in any spiritual 
      application.  For one single example, the parable of the
      unforgiving servant.  The debt refers to our debt of sin.
      In the parable, the unforgiving servant owes a debt and
      his master thus commands that he and his wife and children 
      be sold.
    
      We all know that we are each individually accountable to God.
      The wife and children part, I don't believe, has a lot of
      spiritual application.
    
      Back to Lazarus.  If I was to assume it is true, I am led to
      the necessary conclusion that there is a nonphysical, spiritual
      existence between death and the resurrection.  
    
      No physical bodies.
    
      Well, if there are no physical bodies, how does Lazarus have a
      tongue?  How does he thirst?
    
      The answer is, he can't.  He has no physical tongue thirsting for
      physical water.  Proponents of the popular view would agree on
      this.
    
      Thus those who insist upon the popular interpretation of the Lazarus
      account are placed in a suicidal position.  Lazarus can't have a 
      physical tongue and can't thirst for physical water AND Lazarus
      does have a physical tongue and does thirst for physical water.
    
    						Tony
                           

      re: .183
    
      Garth,
    
        Your logic is not foolproof.  Time and time again, the scriptures
        say the reward is life.  "He who has the son has life."  
    
        What you say is logical, but your logic is not so airtight as
        to deny the possibility of other options - especially when 
        scripture does not deny them.
    
        I just wish you could acknowledge the fact that the words eternal
        and forever have been used (in scripture) to describe to describe
        events of obviously finite time duration.
    
        Its a part of the sacred text.  It needs to be accomadated.
    
        You seem unwilling to do so and to neglect it logically gives
        power to the strength of your argument while accomadating it
        effectively removes the strength of your argument.
    
    							Tony

 Tony, what is the meaning of the "parable" in Luke 16?

    re .183
    
    Garth,
    
    The Bible does speak of eternal punishment and life, this is not what 
    confuses me. It is your argument of "eternal reward for finite works",
    because "eternal life for finite works" is not a doctrine that comes 
    from the Bible. So the dilemma you pose is meaningless when used against 
    Bible teaching.
    
    The Bible teaches that life is a reward for those who excercise faith, 
    not works. It is not something one can earn through finite works and
    shows what a loving merciful person God is.
    
    Therefore, the teaching that God inflicts eternal torment for finite works 
    cannot be compared to the reward of life because eternal life is not 
    something one can earn through finite works. The teaching of hellfire
    shows God to be a cruel God and besmirches his name, Jesus told his
    followers to pray for it to be sanctified (Matthew 6:9). 
    
    The wages sin pays is death (Romans 6:23) nothing more and nothing
    less. Eternal punishment is death or lifelessness with no hope
    of reprieve.
    
    Phil.
    
        

    You may want to reference the believer's Bema Seat Judgment of Christ
    in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15.
    
    Here's also a summary of where we differ on this topic:
    
JW - A person's soul is an inseparable part of the body, so that when a person
     dies there is no continued existence of the soul (Make Sure of All
     Things, 1953 ed., pp. 349,352).
Bible - Christ taught that there is life after death (Luke 16:19-31), Christ
        promised continuing life the same day after death (Luke 23:39-43), and
        Paul taught an independent existence apart from the body after death
        (II Corinthians 5:5-8; Philippians 1:19-24).

JW - The doctrine of immortality of the soul finds its origin with Satan (Let
     God Be True, 2nd ed., pp. 74-75).
Bible - The immortality of the soul is a God-inspired truth (Ecclesiastes 12:7,
        II Corinthians 5:1,6-8).

JW - Since there is no continued existence of the soul after death, Jehovah's
     Witnesses who die will eventually be recreated from Jehovah's memory to
     inhabit His kingdom (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., p. 311).
Bible - The resurrection is a returning of the soul back to its body (I Kings
        17:17-24, Luke 7:11-17), and will happen when Christ returns
        (Luke 24:36-43, Philippians 3:20-21, I Corinthians 15:39-54).

JW - The doctrine of a burning hell where the wicked are tortured eternally
     after death is false (Make Sure of All Things, 1953 ed., pp. 154-55).
Bible - Hell is a place of everlasting torment for the unrepentant wicked
        (Revelation 20:11-15, Matthew 13:41-42,49-50, Mark 9:47-48).

re .94.188
    
    Mike,
    
    You appear to have given an accurate rendition of Jehovah's Witnesses
    stance. However, to make it a balanced reply could you list the
    scriptures these publications point to. 
    
    Thank you
    
    Phil.

    Phil, I was hoping you could help me out with that since I haven't the
    faintest idea how those non-Biblical stances were arrived at.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

      So Mike, when the Bible says that David is still in the grave to
      this day, it is natural to presume that 'David'
    
      has NOTHING to do with the conscious part of him
    
      and has everything to do with the material part of him?
    
      I sure hope that when people refer to me by name, they maninly
      refer to me the person and not to my physical aspect only.
    
      I think there's a lot more studying for all of us to do.  What
      is coming across here is woefully incomplete and simplistic.

Re: .185  (Tony)

>        I just wish you could acknowledge the fact that the words eternal
>        and forever have been used (in scripture) to describe to describe
>        events of obviously finite time duration.
    
...which has already been discussed in earlier 94.* replies.  Do you have
anything to add?


Re: .187  (Phil)
    
>    The Bible does speak of eternal punishment and life, this is not what 
>    confuses me. It is your argument of "eternal reward for finite works",
>    because "eternal life for finite works" is not a doctrine that comes 
>    from the Bible. So the dilemma you pose is meaningless when used against 
>    Bible teaching.
    
That is not what I said or meant.  

The dilemma I proposed has gone over your head, and I don't see the value in
discussing it further, although I will continue if you insist on it.

      Garth,
    
        Could you give me a pointer as to where this was discussed?
        I'm just curious, but (in the discussion) were the conclusions
    	made a matter of interpretation or did scripture clearly point
        to some texts necessarily being understood as infinite time and
        others as of finite time?
    
        Anyway, I appreciate the fact that you have already addressed
        this and if you know where the replies are, I would also very
        much appreciate pointers.  I just don't want to have to wade 
        through a hundred + replies if its not necessary.
    
    							Tony

      Hi Garth,
    
        Can you give me a range such as to look perhaps between .40
        and .70?
    
        Or an author listing?  Were you the writer of these replies?
    
        I'll be glad to take a long hard look at any analysis of the
        uses of eternal/forever and how it is they should be rendered.
    
        Thats a worthy study!
    
    							Tony

.re 192
    
>    The Bible does speak of eternal punishment and life, this is not what 
>    confuses me. It is your argument of "eternal reward for finite works",
>    because "eternal life for finite works" is not a doctrine that comes 
>    from the Bible. So the dilemma you pose is meaningless when used against 
>    Bible teaching.
    
;That is not what I said or meant.
    
    Garth,
    
    I am sorry, I didn't think that you meant this. You stated in reply .109
    that those who receive eternal torture *deserve* it and I couldn't 
    see the parallel with those who receive the free gift of eternal life. 

;The dilemma I proposed has gone over your head, and I don't see the value in
;discussing it further, although I will continue if you insist on it.
    
    Your right, your dilemma has gone over my head and to be honest I'm
    glad it has. Btw I understand eternal punishment and eternal reward,
    but the punishment fits the crime were the eternal reward of life
    is undeserved, otherwise no one would attain it.
    
    We can leave it there if you like, obviously it would be fitting to
    let you have the last say.
    
    Phil.                                              
    

Re: .193 (Tony)
    
>        Could you give me a pointer as to where this was discussed?

Start with my reply .110 and work backwards from there.

Re: .195  (Phil)

>    I am sorry, I didn't think that you meant this. You stated in reply .109
>    that those who receive eternal torture *deserve* it and I couldn't 
>    see the parallel with those who receive the free gift of eternal life. 

Those who receive eternal punishment *deserve* it, on account of their lack of
faith.  Those who receive eternal reward *deserve* it, on account of their
faith. 

>the punishment fits the crime were the eternal reward of life
>    is undeserved, otherwise no one would attain it.
    
(Sigh.)  If you acknowledge that one may be granted an eternal reward, even
though by their finite works they don't deserve it, then why is it so difficult
for you to acknowledge that one may be granted eternal punishment, even though
by their finite works they don't deserve it? 

In practice, I know the answer to that question, which has to do with the
matter of spiritual authority, not chapter and verse.  But that is another
subject that I don't wish to do more than hint at right now.

      Hi Garth,
    
        Ok, I'll give it a shot.
    
        BTW, I don't think anyone deserves anything but the grave.
    
        					Tony

      Hi Garth,
    
        I read .110 and let me know if I understand you correctly.
    
        If aion/aionios is applied to something limited, then it
        follows that aion/aionios is describing something finite
        in time.
    
        If not, it is describing something infinite in time.
    
        Ok.  I believe the scriptures clearly state that MAN IS
        LIMITED.  The Bible says that "ONLY GOD HAS IMMORTALITY."
        It also says that the gift of God IS LIFE.
    
        There's your limitation Garth.  Man is not, by nature, immortal.
        Aion/aionios describe something that happens to people who are
        not given the GIFT of life.  Thus the 'limitedness' of mortality
        remains.  Mortality does not put on immortality for the lost.
    
        They do not receive the gift of life.  Thus aion/aionios is
        applied to a limited event.  Thus it ends with finality, with
        eternal death.
    
        Death and hades are cast as well.
    
    						Tony

the unsaved people all snarf!!!

    My golly Glen,
    
    I can't believe you would do such a thing!  :-)

    >                            -< We Deserve Nothing >-
    
    actually it's worse.  We deserve hell for our sin.  Thank God that He
    made the way so that we don't have to choose what we deserve.
    
    Mike

    Tony, try doing a DIR/AUTHOR=WIEBE 94.* to see all of Garth's replies.
    
    And while you're at it, do a SET PROFILE/AUTOMATIC=UNSEEN so you can
    see all the new notes you've been missing.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

      Hi Mike,
    
        Thanks for the pointer.  I read all of Garth's replies and
        will respond (eventually).  I guess I'll give Lazarus a 
        higher priority though.
    
        And these are all a lower priority than my memorization of the
        book of Hebrews as well as daily studying of Isaiah!
    
        Well, whenever...
    
    						Thanks Again,
    
    						Tony
                          

Re: .199  (Tony)

>        There's your limitation Garth.  Man is not, by nature, immortal.
>        Aion/aionios describe something that happens to people who are
>        not given the GIFT of life.  Thus the 'limitedness' of mortality
>        remains.  Mortality does not put on immortality for the lost.
    
And what about all the people today walking the earth whom the scriptures
describe as "dead"?

And if the gift of "life" is unlimited due to the nature of the giver (God),
then how about "reward" being unlimited due to the nature of the giver (God)? 

And if "reward" can be unlimited, then why not "punishment"?

Therefore, we can conclude that there are many people walking around who are
today "dead", will never accept the gift of "life", and whose destiny is 
therefore to remain eternally "dead" and enter into eternal "punishment."

I see your points as agenda-driven, at best.  Taking your logic to the limit,
you could never be assured that God Himself is without limit, because there
would be no word in the Bible left for you to quote chapter and verse to show 
that God was unlimited.

    Tony, you may want to check out 460.last while you're at it.  
    
    Mike

      Hi Garth,
    
        I think your logic in the last reply is impeccable.  On a purely
        logical level, I see no flaw.
    
        I would just suggest that you submit that logic to the word as
        in...
    
        Sure, the Bible speaks of dead in more than one way, thus one
        can be dead now and yet alive as we understand being physically
        alive.
    
        Perhaps you could submit one notion of death to the Psalmist 
        where it explicitly states that the dead "know not anything" and
        to another scripture that states that at death the thoughts perish.
    
        A death _explicitly_ described as cessation of conscioussness.
    
        I don't see your 'unlimited' conclusions actually.  (That is a
        logical flaw that I see.)
    
        Is God limited if He desires eventual destruction for the lost?
        Can He only be unlimited should the lost remain alive forever?
        
        I know you feel what I am saying is agenda-driven, but I simply
        want to accomadate the whole of holy writ.  The righteous dwell 
        in the everlasting burnings (not the lost).
    
        There are so many scriptures not accomadated by your view, so 
        much so that it seems (to me) to be the agenda-driven and private
        interpretation.
    
    							Tony

I decided to list all the passages of scripture in the New Testament that 
contain the phrase "for ever and ever", as in "they will be tormented day
and night for ever and ever." (Rev 20:10)

The expression, literally, is:

	<eis> <tous> <aionas> <ton> <aionon>
	unto   the     ages  of the   ages

And here they are:
------------------

"...according to the will of our God and Father, to whom be glory for ever and
ever.  Amen."  (Gal 1:4-5) 

"...to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all 
generations, for ever and ever!  Amen."  (Eph 3:21

"To our God and Father be the glory for ever and ever.  Amen."  (Phil 4:20)

"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory
for ever and ever.  Amen."  (1 Tim 1:17)

"...To him be glory for ever and ever.  Amen."  (2 Tim 4:17)

"But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and
ever...'"  (Heb 1:8)

"...through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever.  Amen."
(Heb 13:21)

"...so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.  To him be
the glory and the power for ever and ever.  Amen."  (1 Pet 4:11) 

"To him be the power for ever and ever.  Amen."  (1 Pet 5:11)

"...and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father
--to him be glory and power for ever and ever!  Amen."  (Rev 1:6)

"I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever!"
(Rev 1:18)

"...the twenty-four elders fall down before him who sits on the throne,
and worship him who lives for ever and ever."  (Rev 4:10)

"'To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and
glory for ever and ever!'"  (Rev 5:13)

"'Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength
be to our God for ever and ever.  Amen!'"  (Rev 7:12)

"And he swore by him who lives for ever and ever, who created the heavens
and all that is in them, the earth and all that is in it, and the sea and
all that is in it..."  (Rev 10:6)

"'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his
Christ, and he will reign for ever and ever.'"  (Rev 11:15)

"He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy
angels and of the Lamb.  And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and
ever."  (Rev 14:10-11)

"Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven
golden bowls filled with the wrath of God, who lives for ever and ever."
(Rev 15:7)

"'He has condemned the great prostitute....  The smoke from her goes up
for ever and ever.'"  (Rev 19:3)

"And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning
sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown.  They will
be tormented day and night for ever and ever."  (Rev 20:10)

"No longer will there be any curse.  The throne of God and of the Lamb will
be in the city, and his servants will serve him.  They will see his face,
and his name will be on their foreheads.  There will be no more night.  They
will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God
will give them light.  And they will reign for ever and ever."  (Rev 22:3-5)

      Hi Garth,
    
        I am well aware of the forever and ever texts.  I see two 
        possibilitites.
    
      1)forever and ever differs from forever in that it conveys 
        the idea of greater EMPHASIS.
    
      2)forever and ever differs from forever (as used in scripture)
        in that it has an altogether meaning...that is, when describing
        objects that, for example, do not possess immortality, the
        phrase 'forever and ever' essentially declares such objects
        to be immortal.
    
      In trying to be honest to ALL of scripture, I conclude that #1
      is the correct meaning of forever and ever.  It provides EMPHASIS,
      but it does not 'suddenly' give aion/aionios a different meaning
      than they already have.
    
      The above is not a suprise or an effront to anyone's understanding
      of language.
    
      If I cracked up my father's car, he might say, "You will never drive
      a car of mine again!"
                                                    
      He also might say, "You will never, never, never, never drive a
      car of mine again!"
    
      I won't get the same meaning exactly.  I'll perceive the emphasis.
    
    						Tony

      Correction:
    
      In .209 where I said "has an altogether meaning"
    
      I meant to say "has an altogether DIFFERENT meaning"
    
    						Tony

    Thanks Garth!
    
    I guess the eternal torment of the unsaved will end when God ceases to
    be God.
    
    Mike

Re: .211  (Mike)
    
>    I guess the eternal torment of the unsaved will end when God ceases to
>    be God.
    
Indeed.  And He won't.  So it won't.

It's frightening, when you stop to think about it.  Makes you want to take
the gospel all the more seriously, in realization of what is at stake.

Often I find myself caught up in the routine of life, family, church, and
for that matter, routine discussions about sound doctrine.  Yet to 
consider the plight of lost souls, suffering for an eternity, and the 
holiness of God....  It brings to mind the words of Isaiah, the prophet:

"'Woe to me!' I cried.  'I am ruined!  For I am a man of unclean lips, and
I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the
Lord Almighty.'"  (Isaiah 6:5)

...and the words of the Apostle John:

"The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned
blood red, and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a
fig tree when shaken by a strong wind.  The sky receded like a scroll, rolling
up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place.  Then the kings
of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave
and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains.  They
called to the mountains and the rocks, 'Fall on us and hide us from the face of
him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!  For the great day
of their wrath has come, and who can stand?'"  (Rev 6:12-17) 

    I see you're up late too ;-)
    
>It's frightening, when you stop to think about it.  Makes you want to take
>the gospel all the more seriously, in realization of what is at stake.
>
>Often I find myself caught up in the routine of life, family, church, and
>for that matter, routine discussions about sound doctrine.  Yet to 
>consider the plight of lost souls, suffering for an eternity, and the 
>holiness of God....  It brings to mind the words of Isaiah, the prophet:
    
    Amen!  Most of what we discuss in here assumes the participants are
    saved.  All of this pales in comparison to the criticalness of our
    fallibility and His infallibility and our need for a Savior.
    
    Mike

 Friend, will you be ready?  One of my favorite Choruses that we sing in
 my church is "Behold He Comes", and the line "Friend will you be ready
 when Jesus comes?".  At that point all of the ratholes downwhich we
 proceed will be meaningless.  It could be this very day that we find
 ourselves before the saviour.  A pain in the chest, a wayward driver,
 we don't know we will be here tomorrow, nor whether our loved ones
 will be here.  We had a guest speaker in church yesterday, a Pastor
 who heads up "Missions to the forgotten people", and his message
 yesteday was on sharing the gospel with our friends and neighbors, and
 he used the parable of the Good Samaritan as the launching point for
 a wonderful message.

 Are we ready to meet the saviour?  Are your loved ones ready to meet
 the saviour?  "Thou fool, this very day your soul will be demanded
 of you"...are we ready?  

 

 Jim

      I echo your heartfelt ache to be a channel through which
      many of the lost turn from their wicked ways to Christ.
    
      Of course, we differ on the issue of what ultimately befalls
      the unsaved, but as Paul writes in 2 Cor. 5:14 and on
      (paraphrase as no Bible handy)
    
      If we are beside ourselves, it is for God or if we are of sound
      mind, it is for you.  For the love of Christ constrains us and
      we judge thus.  That if one died for all, then all died.  And
      He died for all that those who live should no longer live for
      themselves, but for He who died for them and rose again.
    
      A concern of mine is that the falsehood being preached here is
      an impediment to the success of the gospel.
    
      BTW, Lazarus inputs are coming, perhaps in a day or two.  I'll
      post them in 737.
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony
                                                    

      I have to ask...
    
      On what scriptural and rational basis do you deny the possibility
      of the following...
    
      aion does not neccesarily mean forever because of the many texts
      previously cited where is obviously does not
    
      AND
    
      the phrase forever and ever (repetition of use of aion) can be
      taken to mean emphasis and not an altogether different meaning.
      
      AND
     
      So far as language is concerned, repetition often is used to
      provide emphasis.
    
      AND I personally don't know of any cases where repetition conveys
      a different meaning outside of emphasis.  (Or at least this is
      not the typical feature of language.)
    
      What is the problem?  It honestly seems to me to be denial based
      on something other than scripture in conjunction with rational
      thought.
    
    						Tony
                                                    

 Psalm 23


  6  Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I 
will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever. 



  "ever" isn't repeated in this verse..does that mean we will not dwell
 in the house of the Lord for eternity?




 Jim

      Hi Jim,
    
        It does, but what makes it mean forever is the word which
        it is describing; the word DWELL.
    
        If I say...
    
        "I will always work at Digital."
    
        It doesn't mean forever in the future.  It is taken to mean
        that I am saying that as long as I work, I will work at Digital.
    
        If I say...
    
        "I will always live."
    
        It means forever NOT BECAUSE OF THE POWER OF THE WORD ALWAYS,
        but because of the nature of the word it is describing.
    
        Do you understand the difference Jim?
    
        Scripture shows us that aion works a lot like the word always.
    
        When it says that a slave will serve his master forever, we know
        it doesn't mean forever in the future.
    
        When it says that someone will live forever, we know it means
        forever because that word is describing the word 'live.'
    
        When we say the saved will do something forever and it speaks
        of in the afterlife, we know it means forever in the future.
    
        WHY?
    
        Because other scripture tells us the saved will be given the
        gift of eternal life.  Thus the word forever is describing an
        object that will be given the characteristic of immortality.
    
        When it says the unsaved will be tortured forever, we know it
        doesn't mean forever because other scripture tells us about the
        lost by telling us they are not given immortality.  Thus the
        Greek word forever is describing something that is not 
        possessing immortality.
    
        Do you understand what I'm saying?
    
        The word aion from which the English is rendered forever is much
        like the word always.  How it describes what it does is very
        dependent on the nature of the object it describes.
    
        All we have to do is look elsewhere to see how scripture
        describes those objects which aion describes.
    
        LOOK AT THE OBJECT THE WORD AION IS DESCRIBING.
    
    							Tony

    
>        Do you understand what I'm saying?
 

   no.


   
      

    Garth posted several references.  Will God continue to be God forever? 
    YES.  Is He forever true to His Word? YES.  Will He punish those that
    reject Him forever?  YES.
    
    Mike

      And the slave will serve his master FOREVER.
    
      Incredible.
    
      What I am saying is not complicated.  Its like the word
      always and even if (for whatever reason) you disagree, the
      concept is not complex.  (I mean you could still understand it.)
    
      My ma might have said that Jane Phillips would ALWAYS be
      my babysitter.  Doesn't mean forever.
    
      If she said that I will always LIVE, then it does.
    
      I don't understand why some of you guys can't get it.
      Patricia gets it.  Others get it.
    
      Is it that you don't want to 'get it'?
    
      Like it or not, those forever texts sometimes do not mean
      forever and thus to take a text that says forever AND
      NECESSITATE THAT IT MUST (solely on the basis that the word
      forever is used) is to turn your back from part of the word
      of God.
    
      That is where your reasoning necessarily follows and that is
      one reason why I stand opposed to your flawed conclusions, i.e.
      eternal conscious torment.
    
    						Oh Well,
    
    						Tony

    Re: slave serving his master forever
    
    I'd have to see the context of the verse.  My recall of Garth's posting
    of verses was quite clear to me on how long forever is.  Not sure how
    comprehensive it was, but the point of forever in the Bible was very
    clear.  
    
    Your reasoning doesn't embrace scripture since you rely on
    extra-Biblical stories to make your point.  And "getting it" or
    going with popular opinion does nothing for me either.  The Bible is
    quite clear on that as well.
    
    Mike

      Mike,
    
        What do you mean by extra-biblical stories?  Do you refer to
    	using a story so as to illuminate on some of the possibilities
        of human language?
    
        Mike, what you say doesn't make sense.  if the story resembles
        scripture's usage of words, its legit.  If it doesn't resemble
    	scripture's way of using words, it is not.
    
        The fact that anyone uses an extra-biblical story says nothing
        about whether doing so is viable (or not).
    
        In addition to the slave forever texts, there are several forever
        texts in Exodus that refer to sacrificial system rites going on
        forever.
    
        They are all over the place.
    
        My ground is the following.  You guys have an excellent case if
        you can show that all the forever texts in the Bible necessarily
        refer to forever in the future in time.
    
        Your posture requires this.  Those are the legs you guys have been
        standing on.
    
        Just grab a Concordance, read all the forever texts in Exodus, and
        realize the sand your legs are standing on.
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

Exodus 3:15  And God said moreover unto Moses, thus shalt thou say unto the 
children of Israel, the LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God 
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for 
ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. 

Exodus 12:14  And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep 
it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast 
by an ordinance for ever. 

Exodus 12:17  And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this 
selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore 
shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. 

Exodus 12:24  And ye shall observe this thing for an ordinance to thee and to 
thy sons for ever. 

Exodus 14:13  And Moses said unto the people, fear ye not, stand still, and 
see the salvation of the Lord, which he will shew to you to day: for the 
Egyptians whom ye have seen to day, ye shall see them again no more for ever. 

Exodus 15:18  The Lord shall reign for ever and ever. 

Exodus 16:16  This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded, gather of it 
every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, according to the 
number of your persons; take ye every man for them which are in his tents. 

Exodus 19:9  And the Lord said unto Moses, lo, I come unto thee in a thick 
cloud, that the people may hear when I speak with thee, and believe thee for 
ever. And Moses told the words of the people unto the Lord. 

Exodus 21:6  Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also 
bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his 
ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. 

Exodus 27:21  In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is 
before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to 
morning before the Lord: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations 
on the behalf of the children of Israel. 

Exodus 28:43  And they shall be upon Aaron, and upon his sons, when they come 
in unto the tabernacle of the congregation, or when they come near unto the 
altar to minister in the holy place; that they bear not iniquity, and die: it 
shall be a statute for ever unto him and his seed after him. 

Exodus 29:28  And it shall be Aaron's and his sons by a statute for ever from 
the children of Israel: for it is an heave offering: and it shall be an heave 
offering from the children of Israel of the sacrifice of their peace 
offerings, even their heave offering unto the Lord. 

Exodus 30:21  So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die 
not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed 
throughout their generations. 

Exodus 31:17  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for 
in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, 
and was refreshed. 

Exodus 32:13  Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou 
swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as 
the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto 
your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 

Exodus 38:26  A bekah for every man, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel 
of the sanctuary, for every one that went to be numbered, from twenty years 
old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred 
and fifty men. 

Leviticus 6:18  All the males among the children of Aaron shall eat of it. It 
shall be a statute for ever in your generations concerning the offerings of 
the LORD made by fire: every one that toucheth them shall be holy. 

Leviticus 6:22  And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead 
shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly 
burnt. 
 23  For every meat offering for the priest shall be wholly burnt: it shall 
not be eaten. 

Leviticus 7:34  For the wave breast and the heave shoulder have I taken of 
the children of Israel from off the sacrifices of their peace offerings, and 
have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons by a statute for ever 
from among the children of Israel. 

Leviticus 7:36  Which the LORD commanded to be given them of the children of 
Israel, in the day that he anointed them, by a statute for ever throughout 
their generations. 

Leviticus 10:9  Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with 
thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it 
shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations: 

Leviticus 10:15  The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with 
the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before 
the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons' with thee, by a statute for 
ever; as the LORD hath commanded. 

Leviticus 16:29  And this shall be a statute for ever unto you: that in the 
seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and 
do no work at all, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger that 
sojourneth among you: 

Leviticus 16:31  It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict 
your souls, by a statute for ever. 

Leviticus 17:7  And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, 
after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto 
them throughout their generations. 

Leviticus 20:9  For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be 
surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall 
be upon him. 

Leviticus 23:14  And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green 
ears, until the selfsame day that ye have brought an offering unto your God: 
it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your 
dwellings. 

Leviticus 23:21  And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an 
holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a 
statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations. 

Leviticus 23:31  Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever 
throughout your generations in all your dwellings. 

Leviticus 23:41  And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the 
year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate 
it in the seventh month. 

Leviticus 24:3  Without the vail of the testimony, in the tabernacle of the 
congregation, shall Aaron order it from the evening unto the morning before 
the LORD continually: it shall be a statute for ever in your generations. 

Leviticus 25:23  The land shall not be sold for ever: for the land is mine, 
for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. 

Leviticus 25:30  And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, 
then the house that is in the walled city shall be established for ever to him 
that bought it throughout his generations: it shall not go out in the jubile. 

Leviticus 25:46  And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children 
after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for 
ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one 
over another with rigour. 


Number of occurances of search: for ever  -  19.

Hi Tony, 

I have not had time to go through all of your arguments, in spite of
printing this string out and taking it home.  I'm sorry.  However, I have
severe problems with taking a text where the application of a word is
limited in context, and inferring from that, that the word is thus always
limited in context. 

The context of the Old Testament, for instance is generally different in
this area from the context of the New Testament.  Especially Ecclesiates,
which gives a broad hint with 27 repetitions of "under the sun" in its
brief 12 chapters, or 223 verse (isn't 'conc' great!). 

The things that refer to temporal situations as 'ever' imply that it is 
throughout their actual relevance.  eg, it would seem that Jane Phillips 
was to be your babysitter as long as you continue to need one.  Not that 
you have to have one regardless.  I'm sure Jane understood it the same 
way, and isn't nursing a grudge instead.  Possibly if you were to need 
one in heaven, the promise might again be raised?

That is why the 'forever' of the slave serving his master *is* for ever, in 
terms of mortal allegiance.

However, in the New Testament, new depths of revelation give a fuller 
dimension to the meaning of the word.

    "And this is what He promised us - even eternal life"  1 John 2:25

is promising us the dimension of life that God possesses, as in 

1 John 1:2 :
    "For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear
     witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was 
     with the Father, and was manifested unto us"

Matthew 25:46 informs us that :
  "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to 
   eternal life"

- demonstrating that the continuance of existance for both the righteous
and the wicked is the same. 

Bear in mind that death did not exist before the fall, and what we
understand as 'death' is merely the mortal expression of it.  For Adam and
Eve, the immediate expression of death was an inability to stand before the
Prince and source of Life.  For the soul, this is the eternal expression of
death.  Cessation of existance is a vain hope of the unrighteous, who know 
in their hearts that we are infinitely culpable, yet refuse to bow to 
Righteousness Himself here below.

The one place where Ecclesiastes peeps out of temporal limitations is in 
3:11, where is said that God "has also set eternity in the hearts of men; 
yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end."

The reason I make the exception in this verse is because it is explicitly 
identified as a dimension of God within each person, and also stresses that 
our temporal minds cannot understand this infinity which He has made as a 
part of us.

I still hope to catch up...

							Andrew

| <<< Note 94.222 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| Re: slave serving his master forever

| I'd have to see the context of the verse.  

	Errr.... Mike, isn't that what Tony is basically saying when he talks
about the forever and ever stuff? Weird how you can use it to go against Tony,
but can't accept it when it refers to you. How nice.



Glen

      Andy,
    
        I think we agree with each other 99%.
    
        The word aion has not the power to mean infinite time in the
        future, WHEN THE OBJECT IT DESCRIBES IS TEMPORAL!!!
    
        We agree Andy!
    
        That is my whole point!!
    
        Now, to proceed with the above point in mind, my desire is to
        find, from the Word, if the unsaved are TEMPORAL, or eternal.
        An 'aion' description attributed to the unsaved is insufficient
        based on that which _we agree on_.
    
        So, let us study on.  Let us see how the Bible describes saved
        and lost.
    
        Thats when we'll see things like...
    
        The unsaved are given, as a gift, ETERNAL LIFE.
    
        And we'll see that the lost ARE NOT.
    
        And we'll see that only God has immortality.
    
        Very simple logic.  We see that both saved and lost are,
        by nature, temporal.  Life is a gift conferred by He only
        who is (by nature) immortal.
    
        It is conferred, as a gift, upon the saved and not upon the
        lost.
    
        So when aion describes the lost, even after their resurrection,
        it is describing those who are temporal, i.e. they die.
    
        Thus the torment lasts until they die as they are temporal.
    
        As an aside, I'm glad you appreciated my Jane Phillips story,
        she who is the sister of the real author of 681.  Wonderful
        woman actually!
    
        But, with that analogy, you see my point.
    
        Aion, in and of itself, lacks the punch to attribute temporalness
        or eternalness.  We must proceed further to find whether or not
        the objects that are described by aion are temporal or eternal.
    
        What has been done here is aion has been used to determine the
        temporalness or eternalness of objects.  That is an incorrect
        application of the meaning of that word.
    
        Thus leading to an incorrect conclusion.
    
        Garth's insistence that repetition must imply altogether different
        meaning (rather than emphasis) nothwithstanding.
    
        I think people are getting my point and I appreciate that.  Its a
        HUGE point.
    
        I'm glad you agree Andy.                     
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

      Hi Andy,
    
        I should have read your reply closer.  You err with your
        interpretation of Matthew 25:46.
    
        You equate both uses of aion on the basis, I suppose, that
        they are located within the same sentence.
    
        I do not equate both uses of the word aion on the following
        basis...
    
        One is describing an object that is given the gift of eternal
        life.
    
        One is describing an object that is not given the gift of
        eternal life.
    
        Only God has immortality.
    
        Thus one is describing a temporal object.
    
    
    
        I will not reject your theory that the lost are eternally
        culpable.  They are guilty forever.
    
        But, I wouldn't interject such a theory as some insistence 
        of what God must do with the unsaved.  If He wants to have
        "both body and soul destroyed", He can.
    
        You err by placing far too much importance to the fact that
        the two objects described in Matt. 25:46 are in the same
        sentence.  You also err by placing too little importance to
        the fact that one object that is described by aion is given
        eternal life and one object is not.
    
        Finally, I won't reject that the gift of eternal life encompasses
        far more than a time aspect (such as joy inexpressible), BUT that
        is no argument for the notion that part of the gift of eternal 
        life DOES NOT INCLUDE the gift of living forever (i.e. is eternal 
        life as any person of language would understand that phrase to
        mean).
    
        The gift of eternal life does include just that - eternal life.
    
        But, I appreciate that defense of your view requires clinging to
        the notion that the gift of eternal life cannot include the gift
        of living forever (as you must maintain the lost also have that
        all the while you must agree they lack the gift of eternal life).
    
        ???????
    
        When this doctrine is really probed, the traditionalist stance is
        a tangled web.
                      
        					God Bless,
    
    						Tony
    
    						Tony

Forgive me Tony, but it's as I read your notes that I really appreciate the 
complexity in exposition of a tangled web...

In .229, you identify my stance as clinging to the notion that eternality 
is part of our nature, rather than bestowed as a vehicle of the eternal 
life package. 

The only bone I'd pick with that is that I do not cling to the notion; I
rather cling to the Bible which teaches this 'notion'.  I place the clear
instruction of the Word above mere emotional second guessing, and
reinterpretation according to a human agenda.  In reading your reply, it
appears that your only authority for rejecting the clear Word of God is
your personal bias. 

Every word in the Bible has significance.  When the same word is applied in
the same context to two different objects, it underlines their common
application.  You claim that this is error just because you are unable to
accept the implications. 

Tony, you don't seem to have noticed that death came through the fall.
ie - the non-mortal part of is eternal.

What part of mankind would you see as facing God in the judgement?

								Andrew

Hi,
    
Before entering the Lazarus study, I chose to first respond to a
few replies that described my posture as "bias" (Andy Yuille),
"philosophy" (Ben Price), and "agenda-drive" (Garth Wiebe).  I
believe there were a couple other comments aimed at me of a
similar vein.  For this reason, I offer the accounts of a few
others.  Ed Fudge, the author of the book 'The Fire That
Consumes', Isaac Watts the hymn writer, John Milton author of
'Paradise Lost', and a Baptist Church in the 17th century.

By the way, I talked to Ed Fudge over the phone this weekend and
asked him if I could cite from his book.  I told him what I
wanted to quite.  He said I could quote whatever I wanted as
long as I provided the following information...


	The Fire That Consumes
	by Edward William Fudge
	Copyright 1982
	Providential Press
	Post Office Box 218026
	Houston, Texas  77218
	U.S.A.

PREFACE
Like the householder's treasures, the conclusions stated in this
book included ideas which to me were both old and new.  The fact
that final punishment will indeed be final - irreversible and
without restoration or remedy forever - came as no surprise. 
The Bible clearly warns of destruction and punishment which are
eternal, even as it speaks of everlasting life.  What took my
breath more than once was the fact that Scripture so
consistently and emphatically teaches the nature of that
everlasting punishment to be utter extinction into oblivion
forever.  It was disappointing to realize the extent to which
traditionalist authors have passed by the other side of biblical
passages unfavorable to their position.  The historical
development of the common understanding has its own surprises as
well, as does the literature of its earliest explicit advocates,
who often reasoned from the most unbiblical presuppositions.

This study has elicited a spectrum of emotions within the author
- despair and relief, anxiety and peace, incredulity and final
surrender.  The position presented must stand or fall on the
evidence, and that evidence is not personal desire, human
philosophy or ecclesiastical tradition but the living and
abiding, infallible Word of God.

From early childhood I have learned and believed that the Bible
taught the unending conscious torment of sinners in hell,
although in recent years I have thought of that pain more in
spiritual terms than physical and have come to hope that my
youthful estimates of hell's population were greatly
exagerrated.  I grew up with the suspicion that anyone who
questioned that view was little removed from a modernist who
also doubted the resurrection of Jesus.  I had no desire to
change my mind or any inclination that I would ever do so.

The thought of hell never particularly troubled my mind,
although like every sober Christian, I recoiled from the actual
thoughts of anyone suffering forever.  I have never been gifted
as an evangelist and have consequently had very little
experience with the "offense" which several friends tell me the
common doctrine of hell seems frequently to present to
unbelievers.  (Along that line, we must be careful not to
succumb to a kind of reverse reaction which prevents our
considering with an open mind an idea that in the end might
happen to be of some practical benefit in evangelism or which
might give to godly minds any measure of relief.)

Some time after I finished graduate work at Abilene Christian
University in Abilene, Texas, I asked a favorite former
professor to suggest some biblical topic that might lend itself
to profitable ongoing research.  Perhaps he mentioned more than
one; I do not now remember.  What did stick in my mind is that
he suggested the topic of final punishment.  "I find it
interesting," he said, "that the particular word gehenna is used
only in the Gospels for the end of the wicked.  You might like
to look into the language the rest of the New Testament writers
use."

A year or so later I was invited to speak on the subject of
final punishment in a small forum at St. Louis (Missouri)
Christian College, which made an effort to bring together
varying views and to allow public questions and discussion of
their respective merits.  My thoughts were simple and consisted
largely of a brief presentation of a dozen New Testament
passages which contrast the final ends of the saved and the
lost.  The most radical thing I suggested was that the Age to
Come will be qualitatively different from the Present Age and
that we must therefore leave room for some surprises when we try
to understand language drawn from our space-time experience here
and now.  Professor Russel E Boatman, a brother from the host
school, also spoke, presenting his own personal,
admittedly-minority, conditionalist views.  He is still the only
man I have ever heard present such views in person.  At that
time I had never read such views either.

Someone encouraged me to submit my little paper for
consideration to Christianity Today.  I sent a rough draft first
to Professor F.F. Bruce, who has been a beloved and highly
respected mentor, and also to Dr. W. Ward Gasque, a scholar I
respected especially for his objectivity and thoroughness and
who served at the time on the editorial committee of
Christianity Today.  Both made some suggestions; the manuscript
was submitted, accepted and subsequently published.

Among those who read the published article was an Australian
avocado farmer named Robert D. Brinsmead.  A former Seventh-Day
Adventist, Brinsmead had separated from that denomination over
the issue of justification by faith, a theme he now stressed in
his theological journal, Verdict (formerly Present Truth).  In
the summer of 1978-1979 he approached me concerning the
possibility of a research contract with Verdict Publications on
the history of the doctrine of final punishment.  I must have
tried his patience almost to the limit with repeated questions
concerning hidden motives, secret agendas or predetermined
conclusions.  he and his Verdict associates always responded
with the gracious assistance that I follow every possible lead
and leave no stone unturned in seeking whatever truth thorough
research might lead to light.  Verdict backed this verbal
insistence with action, making no demands of any kind while
sparing neither effort nor expense in assisting that unhampered
research.  No research person could have asked for less
interference or for more genuine help.

My desire has been to be biblical, reverent and fair.  The only
truth on the subject is contained in the Old and New testament
Scriptures.  All else must be measured by that standard.  When
the Bible talks about God's wrath and the end of sinners (which
it does quite often in both Testaments), it speaks in awesome
tones which should bring us to our knees in fear and trembling. 
There is no place here for frivoloty or jesting.  I pray that
this book will reflect the sense of seriousness which the
subject demands.

This book is written to be read - and argued with!  I have no ax
to grind and no cause to champion; I have tried to follow the
ordinary methods of sound biblical exegesis.  Competent scholars
and serious students are cordially invited to enter into
dialogue.  Check the statements made here.  Weigh the evidence. 
Examine the arguments.  Measure this work by every proper
standard.  All that matters is that we seek God's truth for His
glory and the salvation of sinners!

Throughout this study the "traditionalist" view signifies the
understanding that hell will involve the unending conscious
torment (whether spiritual or physical or both) of the wicked
who have been made deathless (immortal).  The term
"conditionalist" is used for the view that the wicked will
suffer conscious punishment precisely measured by divine justice
but that they will finally perish in hell so as to become
totally extinct forever.  Althoug some authors on both sides
intentionally use loaded terms to describe the two positions,
these words are chosen in the hope of avoiding any unfair
connotations.

Early in the study I was greatly encouraged by the remarks of
John W. Wenham in the fine Inter- Varsity publication, The
Goodness of God.  The conditionalist arguments have never been
squarely met, Wenham said there; this subject has not been
discussed in the open by the best minds and methods of
mainstream evangelical scholarship.  While disclaiming any place
in such august company, this book is nevertheless presented as
one opening contribution toward the study for which Wenham there
called.  I have learned from so very, very many.  may the
gracious and sovereign God use me, in even a small way, to bless
just a few.

The following is a short sketch of Watts concerning what seems
to be conditionalist views which he apparently came to somewhat
later in life.  I especially like including Watts for I have
heard one preacher (whom I especially like) say that he felt
Watts wrote the most inspired words ever written originally in
English:



			When I Survey the Wondrous Cross



  When I survey the wondrous cross On which the Prince of glory died,
  My richest gain I count but loss, And pour contempt on all my pride.

  Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast, Save in the death of Christ, my God;
  All the vain things that charm me most - I sacrifice them to His blood.

  See, from His head, His hands, His feet, Sorrow and love flowed mingled down;
  Did e'er such love and sorrow meet, Or thorns compose so rich a crown?

  Were the whole realm of nature mine, That were a present far too small;
  Love so amazing, so divine, Demands my soul, my life, my all.


Isaac Watts
But not all who questioned the received doctrine did so in the
name of Reason.  The famous hymn writer, Isaac Watts
(1674-1748), who had defended the traditionalist view of final
punishment in his younger life, in later years wrote 'The Ruine
and Recovery of Mankind', in which he raised serious questions
concerning some popular assumptions of that position.  More than
one conditionalist author has pointed with pleasure to the pious
Watts' comment that

There is not one Place of Scripture that occurs to me, where the
word Death, as it was first threatned in the Law of Innocency,
necessarily signifies a certain miserable Immortality of the
Soul, either to Adam, the actual Sinner, or to his
posterity...That the resurrection of the body to a state of
misery is threatned in the Bible for the punishment of Adam's
first sin is what I cannot prove, nor do I know in what text of
Scripture to find it.'

Arthur Paul Davis, a biographer and scholar of Watts, describes
him as "by nature charitable" and "intelligent enough to grow." 
This means his "views changed as opponents convinced him, and he
confessed his convictions and stated his doubts with equal
honesty."  Because Watts held to Scripture as his authoritative
source, he would not blindly accept even ecclesiastical
tradition without comparing it for himself with the Bible. 
"With reason and scripture as his pilots," says Davis, "he was
from his youth to his grave an open-minded and undogmatic
searcher after religious truth."

John Milton.
One of these was John Milton (1608-1674).  An Anglican of
Puritan leanings, Milton later became and independent.  Best
known for his poetic 'Paradise lost', Milton expressed his
mortalist views in that work and also through his prose.  In
'Paradise Lost', for example, Milton wrote:

...It was but breath
Of life that sinned; what dies but what had life
And sin?  The body properly had neither.
All of me then shall die: let this appease
The doubt since human reach no further knows.

His prose works contain the same thought.  "What could be more
just," Milton inquired, "than that he who had sinned in his
whole person, should die in his whole person?"  And "it is
evident," he continued, "that the saints and believers of old,
the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, without exception, held
this doctrine." (5) In another place Milton concluded: "It may
be inferred, unless we had rather take the heathen writers for
our teachers respecting the nature of the soul, that man is a
living being, intrinsically and properly one and individual not
compounded or separable, not - according to the common opinion -
made up and formed of two distinct and separate natures as of
soul and body; but that the whole man is soul and the soul man.

Traditionalist authors sometimes quote 'Paradise Lost' to
illustrate Milton's imaginative description of hell's severity,
noting that he wrote as a poet and not as a systematic
theologian. (7)  This very use Milton is itself an outstanding
practical illustration of the fact that the terrors of the lake
of fire are lessened not one whit by mortalist convictions
regarding man's natural state in the present life.  Milton based
his convictions on Scripture, of which he was a diligent and
earnest student, and "his religious views underwent a continual
process of revision over a period of years." (8)  He was neither
the first man nor the last to change his mind when confronted
with additional evidence, and the drift of his thought seems to
have been toward a consistent conditionalism.



General Baptist Confession.
Shortly after Richardson published his conditionalist work, some
41 General (Arminian) Baptist "elders, deacons and brethren" met
at London in 1660 and presented Charles II with 'A Brief
Confession or Declaration of Faith.'  It represented the
beliefs, they said, of more than 20,000 others besides
themselves.  While clearly affirming the resurrection of the
wicked as well as the righteous in Article 21, the next Article
affirmed that their final end will be utter extinction.  The
original document italicized the statement of Article 22 that
"The triumphing of the wicked is short, and the joy of the
Hypocrite but for a moment; though his Excellency mount up to
the Heavens, and his head reach unto the clouds, yet shall hee
perish for ever, like his own dung; thay which have seen him,
shall say, where is hee?"  The Confession also affirmed the Holy
Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice, and set forth
ordinary Baptistic distinctives as "the apostolic way."

			LAZARUS

Once, as Jesus taught on stewardship and covetousness, the
Pharisees sneered at His word.  Jesus replied with an assortment
of remarks, culminating in this parable.  A close comparison of
this parable to its immediate context reveals so many parallels
that one marvels at the intricate connection.  Yet many
advocates of eternal conscious torment write as though the story
had no context at all, as if its primary point is one found
nowhere in the context.  Buis says, for example, "This parable
so clearly teaches the orthodox doctrine of eternal punishment
that the opponents of the doctrine are hard pressed to know what
to do with it." 104

The plot of the parable, the reversal of earthly fortunes after
death, was familiar in popular Palestinian stories of Jesus'
time.  Hugo Gressman cites a Greek parallel from a first-century
Egyptian papyrus, and he says there are at least seven versions
of the story in Jewish literature.  One of the most famous
involved a poor student of the Law and a rich publican named Bar
Ma'jan. (105)  There are differences between these stories and
Jesus', of course, and therein lies the Lord's uniqueness.  But,
the basic plot was well-known folklore.

Froom cites a discourse of Josephus concerning Hades which
paints almost precisely the same picture found in Luke.  He
concludes that "Jesus was clearly using a then-common tradition
of the Jews to press home a moral lesson in a related field." 
(106)  Although the Whiston edition of Josephus offers a lengthy
defense of the treatise's authenticity on internal and external
grounds, (107) most scholars today regard it as spurious, as
conditionalists Edward White and Henry Constable both note. (108)

Traditionalists generally begin their interpretation of the
parable with the word "Hades," which they ordinarily regard as
the place of punishment entered by the lost at death, to be
changed at the last judgment only in intensity and permanence. 
This understanding became prominent in the High Middle Ages (as
we will outline in a later chapter), and it was mediated into
Protestantism largely through the influence of John Calvin (see
earlier chapters on immortality and the fathers, also Appendix
B).  It puts some stress on the pagan Greek background of
"Hades" but fails to appreciate sufficiently the biblical usage
of the term in either Old or New Testament.

Hades.
In Greek mythology Hades was the god of the underworld, then the
name of the nether world itself.  Charon ferried the souls of
the dead across the rivers Styx or Acheron into this abode,
where the watchdog Cerberus guarded the gate so none might
escape.  The pagan myth contained all the elements for medieval
eschatology: there was the pleasant Elysium, the gloomy and
miserable Tartarus, and even the Plains of Asphodel, where
ghosts could wander who were suited for neither of the above. 
Ruling beside the god was his queen Proserpine (or Persephne),
whom he had raped from the world above.

The word hades came into biblical usage when the Septuagint
translators chose it to represent the Hebrew sheol, and Old
Testament concept vastly different from the Greek nations just
outlined.  Sheol, too, received all the dead, as we have noted
in another chapter, but the Old Testament has no specific
division there involving either punishment or reward. 
Intertestamental Judaism held at least two opinions on Hades. 
Those who expected a partial resurrection (of the righteous
only) saw Hades as everlasting (for the wicked); those who
looked for a general resurrection naturally thought of it as
temporary. (110)  Rabbinic opinion was so varied, and the
terminology in such a state of flux, that both hades and gehenna
are sometimes the abode of the dead, sometimes the place of
final punishment, sometimes interchangeable, sometimes distinct.
 Modern scholars also disagree on the terms.  Jeremias sees a
sharp distinction between the two words in the New testament,
(111) while hanhart argues that the New Testament usage of hades
does not go beyond the Old Testament meaning of sheol. (112)

In all the confusion, we can best pin down something solid by
looking at specific texts.  Jesus' statement that Capernaum will
go down to Hades (Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15) needs no pagan
background; it finds ample precedent in both Isaiah (isa.
40:10-15) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 32:17-32).  "Sheol is the great
leveller."  (113)  The Lord's confidence that the "gates of
hades" will not prevail against His church (Matt. 16:18) (114)
is illuminated by other Jewish  literature using the same
expression, usually a synonym for death itself (Job 38:17; Isa.
38:18; cf. 3 Macc. 5;51; Wisd. of Sol. 16:13). (115)

Sheol's gates are no longer one-way, its fortress is no longer
impregnable, for Jesus has come in the power of God's kingdom. 
He will destroy death's hold if He has to carry off the gates
like Samson!  In quoting Hosea 13:14, Paul substitutes "death"
for "Hades/Sheol" (1 Cor 15:55), indicating the close
relationship between the two.  Jesus went to "Hades" like all
the dead, but unlike the rest He broke out in victory (Acts
2:27,31), He now holds the keys to "death and Hades" (Rev.
1:18), which both will yield their dead when He comes again to
judge, then will both be cast into the "lake of fire" (Rev.
20:13-15).  It is in keeping with the historical nature of
biblical religion that the New Testament speaks this way of
Hades - not theoretically or systema- tically, but in terms of
what has really happened in the case of Jesus Christ.  We should
not build a whole doctrine, therefore, on a single use of the
word, even if it were elsewhere than in a parable on a different
subject!

Context.
The parable's interpretation must include its context.  (116) 
And nothing in its context remotely suggests the final state of
the wicked, (117) though Jesus does clearly intend to teach
several other lessons.  He has been preaching on covetousness
and stewardship (Luke 16:1-13); the rich man's only implied sin
is his totally selfish neglect of Lazarus. (118)  When the
Pharisees sneer at Jesus' teaching. He warns them against
self-justification, reminding them that God knows their hearts
and that what men highly value, God often detests (vv. 14, 15). 
The rich man and Lazarus provide perfect illustrations of this
truth, too, as the parable twice contrasts them alongside each
other - first showing man's estimation and then showing God's
(vv. 19,25).  Perhaps most important of all, the Pharisees are
wasting every oppurtunity to hear and obey God, though they live
in the most critical of times (vv. 16, 17).  This is the same
mistake the rich man made on earth, a mistake his brothers
continue to make after he is gone. (120)  It is also the ONLY
conclusion Jesus specifically draws in His punch line at the end
of the story (v. 31).  The saying about divorce in verse 18
seems totally out of place regardless of the parable's
interpretation, but even that may reflect an Old testament
arrangement of material.  In Deuteronomy 23-24, Moses also
discusses selfishness (Deut. 23:19-25), then divorce (Deut.
24:1-5), then concern for the poor (Deut. 24:6-22).

Jeremias classes the parable with three others he calls
"double-edged" (Matt. 22:1-14; 20:1-16; Luke 15:11-32).  In each
case Jesus begins with a story familiar to His hearers.  But
having gained their attention and probably their approval, He
throws in an "epilogue" which contains His real message.  The
stress is therefore on that second point - in this case the
plight of the five living brothers who are ignoring the Word of
God.  The parable should not be called The Rich Man and Lazarus,
says Jeremias, but The Six Brothers. (121)

Hunter discerns the same emphasis, and he gives this summary of
Jesus' intended message: "If a man cannot be humane with the Old
Testament in his hand and Lazarus on his doorstep, nothing -
neither a visitant from the other world, nor a revelation of the
horrors of Hell - will teach him otherwise. (122)  The Pharisees
prove Jesus right here, too.  They already ignore Moses and the
prophets; when the apostles confront them with a risen Jesus,
they will ignore that message as well.

This, then, is Jesus' stated message.  These are the points,
raised already in His context, which He illustrates by the
parable.  The two-fold circumstances after death are a vehicle
for the story, and they involve language familiar to Jesus'
hearers - language drawn, not from the divine revelation of the
Old Testament, but from intertestamental and first-century
folklore.  Even if the language teaches something of punishment
after death, it occurs before the final judgment while others
are still living on the earth, even before the gospel becomes a
reality and men turn from Moses and the prophets to hear Jesus. 
There is no clear exegetical basis in Luke 16 for any
conclusions concerning the end of the wicked.

The first point I want to make is that many have said that
Lazarus cannot be a parable as Jesus used an actual name.  I
find this to hold no water given that Jesus happened to be
telling a story of which "there are at least seven versions of
the story in Jewish literature."  Fudge then cites one of them,
of which an actual name is used.  So here is an instance where
Jesus just so happens to be telling a story of which, in Jewish
literature alone, there are at least seven versions and which
use names.

What are the odds that folklore would come up with many versions
of a story and which would also just happen to be an actual
occurance?  I personally find that to be remote.  What I find to
be far more likely is that the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man
is a highly unique parable because it is a parable with a story
of folklore within it.  And the reason a name is actually used
is because the folklore itself, as told, used names.  And the
reason Jesus' parables, with the exception of this one, do not
contain names is because this just may be the only case of a
parable which includes a story of folklore within it.  Are there
any others?

The second point I want to make is that the context of
surrounding passages is extremely relevent to the message of the
parable and has virtually nothing to do with hades.

The third point is that it is incorrect to instill meaning into
hades from a parable which contains a story that is folklore. 
That is improper interpretation of scripture.  We would do
better to depend on other accounts of sheol/hades.

As in...

1 Corinthians 15:50-55 
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51
Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we
shall all be changed -- 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an
eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the
dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal
must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on
incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall
be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is
swallowed up in victory." 55  "O Death, where is your sting? O
Hades, where is your victory?"

This speaks of the resurrection of the righteous.  The KJV
renders 'hades' in verse 55 as grave which is correct.  Hell is
the grave and Jesus is the resurrection and the life.  The grave
cannot hold the righteouss.

The righteous, after death, are in hell (hades = the grave).

Genesis 37:34-35 
34 Then Jacob tore his clothes, put sackcloth on his waist, and
mourned for his son many days. 35 And all his sons and all his
daughters arose to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted,
and he said, "For I shall go down into the grave [sheol] to my
son in mourning." Thus his father wept for him.

The Hebrew for the word grave is sheol.  Now, I don't have a
Septuagint, but I would be willing to wager my house that, in
the Septuagint, the Greek word rendered for sheol is hades. 
Jacob, a Christian, is saying that he will go down into hell
which is sheol = hades = the grave.  (This of course is not a
gehenna study, but then again, neither does Lazarus and the Rich
Man have anything to do with gehenna.)

It is really bad theology to pack all the meaning of a story of
folklore into the word hades all the while the Bible has already
packed it with so much meaning (albeit contradictory to the
Lazarus account and thus more supportive of the truth that Jesus
included folklore in order to convey spiritual lessons and that
it was not an actual occurance).

Tony, 

Sure, you're not alone in this particular fallacy - there's John Stott, a
(relatively) highly thought of Anglican here in the UK who, nevertheless
has a couple of glitches.  If my memory serves me rightly, he also gets
confused over the literality of Genesis contrasting with the lie of evolution. 

							Andrew 

My, Tony, you sure have some typing fingers!  Whipped ten chunky notes in
like a dose of salts there! ;-) ;-) ;-) 

							Andrew 

	He had to of been saving them.....

      Hi Andy,
    
        The point of the 'testimonials' was to reply to yours and 
        other's assertions of bias, philosophying, agenda-driving.
    
        Mr. Fudge had no expectation of believing other than tradition-
        alism.  Look at his description of his experience!  Incredulity,
        final surrender.
    
        Anyone's reading of his book is such that I don't think they
        would dicern bias or any such thing.  Actually, I think the
        guy is a very solid scholar and that the more honest, deep, and
        thorough the study, the more apparent the truth of conditionalism
        will be.
    
        I think Isaac Watts is an excellent example.  Here is a guy who,
        earlier in life, wrote a book on the traditional view.  And lets
        face it...he was one mighty spiritual man.  He changed his views.
    
        WHY???
    
        Because he was willing to learn.
    
        I actually favor the timing of my replies as you again resorted
        to the accusation of bias.
    
        By the way, I wrote them at my PC at home and saved them as 
        an ANSI file and transferred them to work.
    
        I'll reply to your reply immediately preceding my ten replies
        (time permitting).
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    re: folklore
    
    A good teacher uses familiarity to get his points across.  Christ used
    it in all his object lessons.  Christ wouldn't purposely mislead us by
    using real people in the application of what they were familiar with.  
    The author's point of folklore implies deception on Christ's part and is 
    really irrelevant.
    
    Even many traditional hymns of the church are set to bar room music of its
    day.  Familiarity promotes learning.
    
    Mike

    Isn't Fudge from the SDA church?

      No.  Where'd you get that idea?  He's straight out of evangelical
      Christianity.  His conclusions came out of honest study.  Please
      reread his preface.
    
      The fact that it is documented that the story Jesus gave refutes, 
      for me, your point.  It was a well known intertestamental story.
    
      That + a thorough word study of hades and sheol + the context of
      Luke 16 should be enough.  Hades is the abode of both saved and
      lost prior to the resurrection.  As Genesis says, Jacob went down
      into sheol (= hades = hell).
    
      Lazarus doesn't jive at all with a thorough scriptural analysis of
      sheol/hades, but then again, why should it?  Its folklore.
    
      They knew it and _He_ knew it.
    
    						Tony

      Hi Andy,
    
        I am still working on my reply, but I do want to say that
        I now agree with you that aionios in Matt. 25 does refer to
        infinite time in the future _in both cases_.
    
        I believe part of the punishment of the lost is the loss
        of life (not just the suffering that takes place as the lost
        go from life to death).
    
        This punishment is eternal.  They lack life forever.
    
        I've one question for you.  On what basis do you contend that
        some part of man is immortal?  Its my understanding that the
        words soul and spirit, as applied to man, are rendered over
        1600 times in the scriptures.
    
        NOT ONCE are they described as being immortal.
    
        Although 1 Tim. 6:16 explicitly states that ONLY God has
        immortality.
    
    						Tony
    
        

    
>        Although 1 Tim. 6:16 explicitly states that ONLY God has
>        immortality.
    
    1 Corinthians 15:53 and 54.  Pauls says he will take off mortality
    and put on immortality.  What do you suppose that means?


    "Immortality" in 1tim 6:16 speaks of God's nature.  the word immortality
     used in 1 tim speaks of "deathlessness" or without death.  God, by
     His nature is without death.  Only God is without death.  You and I will
     die.  Paul says in 1 cor that he will die (mortal) but he will take
     off mortality (his destiny to die, so to speak) and put on immortality.
     and receive a new body.


   Jim    
        

      Hi Jim,
    
        I would agree.  Paul will live because, as a Christian, he receives
        life as a gift.
    
        The lost will not live because, being lost, they will not receive
        life as a gift.
    
        The dead know not anything.  The lost will suffer tremendous
        torment which will eventually lead to eternal death which includes
        cessation of consciousness.
    
        In other words, they will really be dead.
    
    							Tony

      Hi Andy,
    
        I am still working on my replies to you and so I will not
        proceed with the "where their worm dies not" texts although
        a thorough study of that, as the other texts, will destroy
        your position.
    
        I do observe, however, your stance of doing exactly as I have
        observed others doing in times past.  That is, bring up the texts
        that, on the surface, seem to support unconditional immortality
        and all the while offer little to know explanation for the texts
        that seem to support conditional immortality.
    
        I'll get to the worm text eventually.  But, I need to respond to
        the Matthew text.
    
        I feel I have covered Lazarus well enough.  I can do so for all
        texts that seem on the surface to support unconditionalism.
    
        Andy, you seem to be unaware of the tremendous number of texts that
        speak of complete destruction.  Their number totally overwhelms the
        number of texts that on the surface seem to support unconditionalism.
    
        By the way, I am still awaiting your _scriptural_ proof that some
        part of man is immortal.
    
        I wouldn't want to have to defend your position though.  Not given
        that scripture says that only God has immortality AND that, when
        referring to man, the words spirit and soul have been rendered over
        1600 times AND NOT ONCE have they been described as immortal.
    
        This is the kind of weight in support of the conditionalist position
        that unconditionalists either completely ignore or pay not enough
        significance toward.
    
        And they never grasp the incredible number of texts they give tension
        to by giving them an interpretation so unlike what they clearly seem
        to be saying.
    
        						Tony

    When you are damned you suffer your worst fears: Woody Allan dreads
    seeing the Ice Capades again and again and...

      Hi Andy,
    
        In the past (as in quite a few years back), I would involve
        myself in very long 'debates.'  This has quieted a lot for 
        me, but I still have a conviction over this doctrine.
    
        My principal aim here is not to 'get saved' (although I am
        saved), it is to glorify God.  Part of glorifying God includes
        upholding His character.
    
        Thats why I have a need to beat this doctrine as I do.  I
        believe a right perception of His character is on the line.
    
    						Tony

      Hi Bob,
    
        I hope the things I posted on aion/aionios were read by you,
        i.e. a correct understanding of those terms would conclusively
        show that they lack the 'punch' to maintain that the object 
        they describe is immortal.
    
        We need to look elsewhere for that.
    
        The day will come when Satan is just ashes under our feet.
        He'll be no more as well.
    
    						Tony

    
>        The day will come when Satan is just ashes under our feet.
>        He'll be no more as well.
    
 

   Hmmmm..Revelation 20:10 says he'll be tormented forever.  Or does forever
   not mean forever in this case?





 Jim

      re: .262
    
      In every case aion/aionios still mean what they mean.
    
      I cannot help you understand if you cannot understand the
      following...
    
      If my mother said to me, "Jane Phillips will always be
      your babysitter."
    
      She did not mean forever in the future.  Not even all of this
      earthly life.
    
      If someone said, "God will always be love" we would understand
      this to mean forever in the future.
    
      If you cannot understand this, I cannot help you Jim.
    
      We need to look elsewhere to see if Satan is immortal or mortal.
    
      Again, you posted several 'forever' texts in Exodus describing
      events of obviously finite time duration.
    
      We need to study about the OBJECTS which the words aion/aionios
      ARE DESCRIBING.
    
      Got it?
    
      Were you satisfied with my Lazarus contribution by the way?  Do
      you still insist it describes hades/sheol in a manner consistent
      with the rest of scripture?  Did you know it was a well-known
      intertestamnental story (between O.T. and N.T.) and was popularly
      considered as folklore before Jesus gave the story?
    
      Have your thoughts on Lazarus changed at all?
    
    							Tony

    As a moderator, I am going to ask that this discussion be kept in lines
    with cordial behavior.  The intonation of several notes here have
    elevated from mildly agitated to provocation and sarcasm.
    
    Please keep this discussion palatable.
    
    Nancy
    co-moderator 
    
    

      I'm sorry if I was sarcastic.  I simply don't understand where
      Jim is coming from.  I have really labored to explain aion/
      aionios, but alas, the exact same things keep coming back to
      me.  I'm not really sure how to adequately respond.
    
    						Tony

      Hi Again,
    
        I have been working on a thorough reply to the Matthew verse
        Andy brought up, but I am going to delay it for the worm
        text he brought up.
    
        The reason is that the worm text is an EXCELLENT example of
        the traditionalist argument ignoring what scripture is saying
        and (rather than scripture) alluding to pagan concepts of the
        nature of man to bias interpretation.
    
        I will provide a thorough worm analysis and I hope honest 
        hearts will see how the conditionalist view is fair to the
        inspiration of the holy word.
    
        I also hope that traditionalists give conditionalism some
        possibility of being truth ON THE BASIS of how poor an inter-
        pretation of the worm texts the traditionalist position is.
    
        You guys have no idea of what I'll reply and I am totally willing
        to let it be weighed by its content alone.
    
        Finally, much of it is from Fudge.  I hope you don't have a problem
        with this.  God gave some to be teachers, etc. (Eph 4:15 or there-
        abouts) and Fudge happened to study this doctrine much more exhaus-
        tively than I have.                  
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

    Tony,
    
    Andy is Andrew or 'rew! :-) tyvm  just a nit...

      Oh...thanks Nance.
    
      worm thing almost done.  As with any other study, context and
      prior pertinent references are certainly useful.
    
      Its solid example of how traditionalists have come to their con-
      clusions and conditionalists have come to theirs.
    
    						Tony
    

Hi Tony,

Sorry that you feel irked by my reply.  Please note that I did not intend
in any way to imply that you are _consciously_ rejecting the clear word of
God.

The 'eternal punishment' discussion has come up many times over the years
we have been noting.  I did not think that you would have any illusions
over our perception of the situation, and generally that you would feel
easy with a frank statement. 

However, clearly you feel as if it is personally directed.  I'm sorry it's
perceived this way.  Perhaps we'd better let the discussion rest? 

								Andrew 

      Hi Andrew,
    
        I'd like to continue for awhile.  I suppose we differ as to
        what is considered appropriate dialogue (at times).
    
        I guess I'm just not in agreement with the practice of describing
        the status of people's hearts in a public noting Conference.  I
        personally prefer leaving the discussion as objectively as possible
        to the topic at hand and not getting into any 'speculations' as
        to why someone believes as he does.
    
        Of the 4 things I quoted, I felt personal bias to be acceptable.
        I personally feel the rest is not appropriate to discuss in a 
        public forum.
    
        Thats just how I happen to feel about it.  I prefer sticking 
        objectively to a scriptural study of the doctrine and to not
        stray too much from that.
    
        I do, however, freely admit that I have sinned in this topic.  I
        have been caustic at times and come far short from demonstrating, 
        in my writings, the love of Christ.
    
        But, I'd like to carry on.  There is a fair amount I'd like to
        share.
    
        One last thing.  To me real open and spiritual dialogue includes
        open acknowledgment of when one is mistaken.  For example, a 
        person may defend Doctrine 'A' and cite as defense arguments
        1, 2, 3, and 4.
    
        Another might reply to a couple of these arguments with a contrary
        position ('B').  Based on this person's reply, the 1st person might
        realize that argument 3 was mistaken.  If so, he ought candidly
        admit as much.
    
        I feel that I have weakened much of the force of the aion/aionios
        passages.  I feel that people have cited those texts without 
        realizing the same Greek has been used to describe events of finite
        time duration.
    
        I EXPECT a spiritually more mature and Christ-like mode of dialogue
        to include a person acknowledging as much.  To say something like,
        "Hey thanks for the insight on aion/aionios.  I can see that it 
        doesn't have quite the force in defense of my position that I
        maintained it had."  EVEN IF THE PERSON'S POSITION ON THE DOCTRINE
        REMAINED UNCHANGED.
    
        I feel I have done the same with Lazarus.  I mean...how many people
        knew it was a well known intertestamental tale of folklore that
        included first names?  I have NEVER seen a person of the popular
        view cite the fact that it was well known folklore.  Coupling this
        with the fact that sheol=hades and in every other case has quite
        a different meaning than the acct. of this popular story of folk-
        lore HAS GOT TO WEAKEN ITS STRENGTH OF ARGUMENT.
    
        Do you see what I'm saying?
    
        And yet...how many people have had the spiritually more mature
        notion to openly admit as much?
    
        These are the kind of things I look for in what I would consider 
        to be a more spiritually elevating dialogue.
    
        And I did as much awhile back.  I cited the scripture that said
        of Satan, "And never shalt thou be anymore."  You replied back with
        what I thought was a SOLID reason why that text could be taken a
        different way.  And I replied back AGREEING WITH THAT POSSIBILITY.
        (This might have been a couple years ago.)
    
        Ok, my position hadn't changed.  It was still 'A'.  But, at least
        I was honest enough and spiritually candid enough to publically
        acknowledge that argument '2' had not the strength of support I
        thought it had.
    
        Am I beating to the music of a different drummer?  Does this tune
        echo an "AMEN!" in anyone else's heart?   
    
        Or am I alone on this?
    
    							God Bless,
    
    							Tony

Hi All,

  The worm passage...from Fudge.

Isaiah 66:24

This may be the most ignored biblical passage concerning final
punishment, although it gives us the specific scriptural phrase
which is probably quoted most often.  

Earlier in the same chapter, God contrasts the peace and comfort
promised the humble (Isa. 66:2, 12-14) with the "fury" He will
show His foes (vs. 14).  The language is figurative, typical,
prophetic symbolism.  God executes judgment "with fire and with
His sword" (vs. 16).  When the visitation has ended, "many will
be those slain by the Lord" (v. 16b).  The wicked "meet their
end together" (v. 17).  The righteous and their descendants
endure forever (v. 22).  "All mankind" comes to worship God (v.
23) - the wicked are no more.  This is the setting of the
crucial verse 24.  It says:

And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who
rebelled against Me; their worm will not die, nor will their
fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.

Jesus quotes these words in one of His own famous statements
about final punishment (Mark 9:48), and they have formed the
basis for much Christian teaching on hell ever since.  It is
important to look carefully, therefore, at what the verse
actually says.  Only then is one ready to build on it in the
light of later revelation.  We will consider it briefly, phrase
by phrase.

The righteous "go out and look" on their enemies' corpses. 
Although this is clearly a symbolic picture of the future, it
may well be based on an actual incident which Isaiah witnessed. 
In one of the greatest acts of divine deliverance since the
Exodus and the Red Sea, God had answered Hezekiah's prayer and
saved Jerusalem overnight from certain defeat by the Assyrians
(2 Kings 18:17-19:36; Isa. 36, 37).  Isaiah had strengthened
hezekiah with the Lord's encouraging message (Isa. 37:21-35). 
That night


The angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and
eighty five thousand men in the Assyrian camp.  When the people
got up the next morning - there were all the dead bodies! - Isa.
37:36.


Now Isaiah declares that the same scene will be reproduced on a
vaster scale at the end of time.  In the historical event of
Isaiah's day (Isa. 37:36) and in his prophetic picture of the
future (Isa. 66:24), the righteous contemplate with satisfaction
"the dead bodies" of the wicked.  They look at corpses (Hebrew:
pegerim), not living people.  They view their destruction, not
their misery.  (16) [Note: 16 says...On God's people viewing the
carcasses of their enemies with satisfaction, see also Exod.
14:30 (the prototypal event); Ps. 58:10; 91:8; Ezek. 39:9-22;
Mal. 4:1-3.

Other Bible verses mention "worms" in connection with dead
bodies. (17)  Several kinds of flies lay eggs int he flesh of
carcasses, which hatch into larvae known as maggots.  These
serve a beneficial purpose in hastening decomposition.  They are
also a symbol of ignominy "precisely because they attack only
bodies prevented from burial."  (18)  To the Hebrew mind, even
if a man could live to be 2000 years old and have 100 children,
without a proper burial he would better have been stillborn
(Eccles. 6:3-6).  Like Jezebel, these corpses are left unburied;
they are "loathsome" to all who see them (2 Kings 9:10). 
Jeremiah also predicts this ultimate disgrace for God's enemies:

At that time those slain by the Lord will be everywhere - from
one end of the earth to the other.  They will not be mourned or
gathered up or buried, but will be like refuse lying on the
ground. - Jer. 25;33.

Such discarded corpses are fit only for the worms and fire. 
Although death by burning was not unknown in the old Testament,
(19) that is not the picture here.  To burn a corpse signified
at times a thing utterly accursed or devoted to God for
destruction (Josh. 7:25).  It also was an act of complete
contempt (Amos 2:1). (20)

Because this fire is "not quenched" or extinguished, it
completely consumes what is put in it.  The figure of
unquenchable fire is frequent in Scripture and signifies a fire
that consumes (Ezek. 20:47, 48), reduces to nothing (Amos 5:5,
6) or burns up something (Matt. 3:12) (21)Both worms and fire
speak of a total and final destruction.  Both terms also make
this a "loathsome" scene.  The righteous view it with disgust
but not pity.  The final picture is one of shame, not pain.

Traditionalist writers, as a matter of course, interpret this
passage in the light of their conception of final
punishment rather than forming an understanding on the basis of
the passage.  Jesus' use of the language is generally handled
the same way.  Rather than studying the passage, determining the
sense of its figures and reading New Testament quotations on
that foundation, commentators and theologians again and again
begin with the New testament quotations, interpret them in the
light of church positions, and ignore the Isaiah text altogether.

Buis does quote the verse as one of those "which hint at future
retribution" but does not attempt to explain its figures. 
Instead, he cites Delitzsch that it speaks of "the eternal
torment of the damned." (22)  Braun ignores the passage
entirely. (23)  Isaac Watts says there would be "no punishment
at all" if the etxt meant what it pictures, so he allegorizes
the gnawing worm into "the remorse and terrible anguish of
conscience which shall never be relieved," and makes the
unquenchable fire "the pains and anguish which come from
without." (24)  Calvin regards it a mistake to say these things
"related absolutely to the last judgment," although he does "not
deny that they extend as far as to that judgment." (25)  He does
not exegete the verse at all but asserts that "the plain
meaning" is

that the wicked shall have a bad conscience as an executioner,
to torment them without end...and finally, that they shall
tremble and be agitated in a dreadful and shocking manner, as if
a worm were gnawing the heart of a man, or a fire were consuming
it, and yet thus consumed, he did not die. (26)

Luther also makes the worm "the bite of the conscience," an
interpretation suggested also by Augustine. (27)

This allegorical interpretation, based on reading into the text
something not there while passing over all that is, is very
ancient, dating at least to the intertestamental apocryphal book
of Judith. (28)  But search as he will, one simply cannot find
anything in Isaiah 66:24 about conscience suffering, much less
forever.  One might wish to argue the point from some other
passage.  But any fair use of the phrases originating here must
at least take account of the sense of this passage without
reading into its picture extraneous ideas from a later time and
place.  Proper exegesis demands as much, but that is precisely
what traditionalist writers have failed to do from ancient times
to present.  Conditionalist authors have pointed out this
deficiency time and time again, but they have customarily been
ignored, their remarks dismissed without further notice.

Salmond, who defended the traditionalist view of hell, is a
notable exception to that generalization.  He wrote, "This is
the picture at least of an absolute overthrow, an irreversible
punishment overtaking the rebellious.  At a later period the
word [hell] was used to designate the place of future
retribution." (29)  Later he notes that, while the terms of
Jesus' teaching are based on this passage, "it does not follow
that they are limited to the use which is made of them there"
and that they become "figures of a retribution of another order
than any that takes effect on earth." (30)

We agree with that statement most heartily.  The adjective
"eternal" includes a qualitative aspect, as we have already
seen, and it suggests something belonging to the Age to Come. 
The final punishment of the wicked will be of "another order"
than that of any temporal judgment.  But Scripture describes
_what_ it will be in terms taken from specific occasions of
divine judgment within history.  We ask only that any
explanation of those terms at least _begin_ with the scenes they
first described, and then that any extension of their meaning be
grounded on biblical exegesis and not traditional or dogmatic
fancy.

    THIS IS A CROSS POSTING FROM 737.281, AS BOTH STRINGS SEEM TO HAVE 
    ENDED UP AT THE SAME POINT.  IT IS PLACED HERE FOR CLARIFICATION.  
    ANY DISCUSSION SHOULD BE CONTINUED UNDER NOTE 737.

Last night at last I managed to run through your quotes from Fudge et al, 
expecting to find some meat there to support your case, but in spite of a 
lot of words, I found negligeable substance.  In fact, all it had to build on 
was the presence of parallel narratives in Pharisaic tradition.

The fact that there are Pharisaic stories around that period which concern
those who die is hardly surprising.  They had a heavy tradition of acceptance
into the Kingdom of heaven for Jews, which did not allow room for banishment
of a child of Abraham.  A later exception, I understand, is for those who are 
baptised (tradition only - no need to be concerned! ;-)

Although there are a number of traditional stories, none of them corresponds 
to Jesus' instruction Luke 16.  This is hardly surprising, for Jesus shows the 
rich, respected Pharisee as exiled from paradise, while the despised beggar 
Lazarus is honoured and blessed with Abraham.  This cut right across 
everything the Pharisees believed and taught.  The understanding of the 
day - fostered by tradition, and the self-interest of the Pharisees (see Luke 
16:14) was that personal wealth was a mark of God's favour - and even now, we 
sometimes refer to someone who is encumbered financially as 'blessed' ;-).

There are many examples of this attitude, but perhaps the clearest is in
Matthew 19.  A young man of the nobility (we gather from parallel accounts)
approached Jesus, asking how to obtain righteousness.  Normally he would be
considered as 'safe', because of the evidence of his wealth and position in
Israel.  Jesus cut through these assumptions in v21 by saying that if he
really wanted to be perfect, he should dispose of his goods to charity, and
then follow Jesus. 

This was a wipe-out to the disciples - let alone the rest of the populace.  
Throw away 'God's blessing'?  So Jesus underlined that yes, this was exactly 
what He meant, by saying "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye 
of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."  The disciples 
reaction was :-
	If it's so hard for the rich man to enter heaven, surely there 
	isn't much hope for anyone else 

 - "Who then can be saved?"

Jesus' teaching here, and in various places emphasises that worldly wealth and 
esteem is an actual hindrance to spiritual growth.  "Where your treasure is, 
there your heart will be also" (Matthew 6:21).

Now, in the traditional life after death stories of the Pharisees, there was a 
basic understanding of the afterlife.  Their failure was in confidently 
assuming that they had a reserved seat next to Abraham.

So in Luke 16, Jesus filled in the traditional picture with an actual example.
He wouldn't use a false framework, because that would throw His integrity into 
doubt, as well as undermining the point of the narration.

To a large extent, whether he referred to actual known (not 'living', but
'formerly living'!) people is not so relevant to us now, who would not habve
known either of them.  But in view of Jesus direct methods and teaching, I
rather suspect [personal opinion here] that the characters could be readily
identified from the name 'Lazarus', and that this gave the crowd an immediate,
individual, personal awareness of precisely the situation to which Jesus was
referring.  Meanwhile, in the background, those Pharisees who 'loved money'
(v14) and honour from men (John 12:43) would be livid at this dismissal of the
worldly values they treasured.  Exciting! 

So - the events of Luke 16:19-31 were not in folk-lore.  Similar stories,
based on the factual framework were put about to boost the leaders'
reputation, but these could not affect either the error of the false
assumptions, or the truth of the basis.  Jesus took the latter, discarding the
former. 

					God bless
							Andrew

							=> Continuing in 737...