Gehenna - just a rubbish tip outside Jerusalem?

[Wootah]

Many here seem to believe Gehenna is just a rubbish tip outside Jerusalem and not a reference to hell.

Pulling an argument from this video (around the 16-minute mark):

Mark 9 vs 43-49 says: 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: 44 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 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: 46 where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Why does Jesus talk about entering into life and the rubbish tip outside Jerusalem in the same sentence? Do you really believe people thought hey let's follow Jesus so we don't go into the rubbish tip outside Jerusalem or do you think they knew Jesus meant hell?

Also since that rubbish tip's fire is quenched now and has been for a long time then doesn't that mean Jesus is a liar when he says that the fire there never shall be quenched?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Wootah in post #50]

I will love it? Time will tell.

I'll enter it sometime soon, maybe.

But whatever, in the meantime, we could be setting ourselves up to be doing some good exchanges on this very thread.

Coming up tomorrow.

[PinSeeker]

Eternal punishment (the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense) is not eternal (continuing forever/indefinitely) in the case of the receiver of that punishment being annihilated. In that case, it would only be momentary at best.

If the punishment is: to be permanently non-existent, then it lasts until the person starts to exist again. In short the punishment isn't DYING momentary instant one passes from life to death (which both good and evil experience), it is perpetual/perpetual unending (everlasting) death.

In the case of annihilation, the nature of the punishment itself would only be momentary, the administration of that punishment would only be momentary, and the enduring of that punishment by the one punished would only be momentary. Annihilation itself is only momentary, fleeting. Annihilation is not eternal in any sense and therefore not Biblical.

Indeed thus the many biblical images of a permanent testimony...

Agree with the permanence, for sure. The punishment itself indeed continues eternally. The everlasting smoke indicates the permanence of God's judgment, the worm of the ones punished not dying indicates permanent, unending anguish. All this is permanent and eternal ~ lasting for eternity.

...the many biblical images of a permanent testimony to what had happened "everlasting smoke" , "undying worms/maggots"; a permanent warning for the living that divine judgement took place.

This assertion is contradictory in and of itself. When Jesus returns, and especially after the Judgment, of course ~ in the age to come, eternity ~ there will be no more need of any warning whatsoever. Again, though, we agree on the permanence after the Judgment of what has been prescribed for eternity at the Judgment ~ for the ones on Jesus's right as well as those on His left at the Judgment.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

No, the death (the cessation of existence, the utter destruction) is eternal.

And yet again, we are back to exactly what death ~ and destruction ~ is in God's economy, not ours. I agree on the eternal part; see my response to JW above.

I really don't understand why that is so hard to grasp.

Oh, insult to my intelligence notwithstanding, I understand the concept of eternal punishment ~ the Biblical one ~ quite well. And I also understand well the error of annihilation, as well as why it is in error. I agree that it is not hard to grasp, but I also understand the perceived ~ from the human perspective ~ repugnance of it.

The death is eternal. Therefore, the punishment (death) is eternal.

Agreed. Again, see above.

There can be no resurrection from it, no coming back from it.

At the time of the sentencing of those on Jesus's left, the resurrection (to judgment) has already occurred, so there is no need of resurrection at that point. The more appropriate words to have used here would have been justification, or redemption (rather than 'resurrection'). Not to be corrective, but it is what it is. But yes, the finality, the permanence, the irrevocability of it, sure.

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

No, the death (the cessation of existence, the utter destruction) is eternal.

And yet again, we are back to exactly what death ~ and destruction ~ is in God's economy, not ours. I agree on the eternal part; see my response to JW above.

We do not have to be back to 'what' (the second) death is, no.

This is about the permanent/eternal nature of the punishment (the second death). Regardless of whether you think (the second) death is conscious existence apart from God OR utter destruction/cessation of existence altogether, that (second) death is eternal.

So if (the second) death is the punishment and (the second) death is annihilation, then the punishment (annihilation) is eternal.

You can insert anything you want in place of (the second) death - if it is eternal, then the punishment is eternal. The only difference is that annihilation does not have or require eternal suffering to go along with it.

The death is eternal. Therefore, the punishment (death) is eternal.

Agreed. Again, see above.

Then there should not be an issue understanding how the punishment can still be eternal even if (the second) death is annihilation/utter destruction/cessation of existence.



Peace again to you.

[PinSeeker]

This is about the permanent/eternal nature of the punishment (the second death).

Only the eternal nature of it, and what that means. There is no dispute about its permanence.

Regardless of whether you think (the second) death is conscious existence apart from God OR utter destruction/cessation of existence altogether, that (second) death is eternal.

I think neither, actually. I'm a little on both sides of the fence as you present that fence here. But that's at least part of the problem, is your presentation of this fence. You somehow see (incorrectly) the part before your "OR" as not eternal, and you somehow see (incorrectly) the part after the "OR" as eternal. Both of these things are astounding. No, the thing itself is eternal ~ lasting or existing forever, without end ~ not just its effect or its... well, legacy, I guess you could say.

So if (the second) death is the punishment and (the second) death is annihilation, then the punishment (annihilation) is eternal.

Those are two very big 'ifs.' The first is correct, for sure; there is no argument on that. The second is not correct, for if it were, the punishment ~ the thing itself; see above ~ would not be eternal (lasting or existing forever, without end) in any sense at all.

...annihilation does not have or require eternal suffering to go along with it.

The suffering is not a requirement. It's a consequence of, a personal experience in, God's final judgment and being under it. For eternity.

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

This is about the permanent/eternal nature of the punishment (the second death).

Only the eternal nature of it, and what that means. There is no dispute about its permanence.

Eternal, permanent... same thing. And there does seem to be a dispute about its permanence, when you or Wootah (or anyone else) claims that annihilation is not (or cannot be) an eternal punishment. I mean, that seems to be Wootah's very argument.

Regardless of whether you think (the second) death is conscious existence apart from God OR utter destruction/cessation of existence altogether, that (second) death is eternal.

I think neither, actually. I'm a little on both sides of the fence as you present that fence here. But that's at least part of the problem, is your presentation of this fence. You somehow see (incorrectly) the part before your "OR" as not eternal, and you somehow see (incorrectly) the part after the "OR" as eternal.

Um... not sure what you're talking about, Pinseeker. I said no matter how anyone defines the second death (before the "or" or after it), the second death is eternal.

Both of these things are astounding. No, the thing itself is eternal ~ lasting or existing forever, without end

Indeed. The death itself. Whether a person defines it as 'conscious existence' or 'non-existence'. Either of those is eternal.

~ not just its effect or its... well, legacy, I guess you could say. The second death is a conscious existence and not a cessation of existence. But it is not apart from God" in that in that He administers

You are going to need to finish or correct that last sentence because it is incomplete and I cannot tell what you are trying to say.

So if (the second) death is the punishment and (the second) death is annihilation, then the punishment (annihilation) is eternal.

...annihilation does not have or require eternal suffering to go along with it.

The suffering is not a requirement.

Since I figured you would hone in on that word (require), you will note that I wrote also 'does not have'.

So annihilation does not have eternal suffering to go along with it.



Peace again to you.

[PinSeeker]

You are going to need to finish or correct that last sentence because it is incomplete and I cannot tell what you are trying to say.

I just did ~ even before your post actually hit the board. See above.

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #57]

No worries. Sounds like you just removed that bit, so there is nothing additional to address.

Peace again to you.

[PinSeeker]

Eternal, permanent... same thing.

Nope. It may seem like little difference, but 'eternal' refers to its ongoing nature and present at all points going forward, whereas 'permanent' refers to its state as rendered immune from any change going forward from a single point. See above.

And there does seem to be a dispute about its permanence, when you or Wootah (or anyone else) claims that annihilation is not (or cannot be) an eternal punishment.

Nope. You have to differentiate between the thing itself ~ the punishment ~ and the thing's effect, or legacy. The punishment's effect/legacy, plainly, is not what's being referred to by "eternal punishment," bur rather the punishment itself.

I mean, that seems to be Wootah's very argument.

I guarantee he would agree 100% with what I've said here. No, what you seem to think is his argument is not his argument.

Um... not sure what you're talking about, Pinseeker.

Yes, I have no doubt about that. What you stated there, that I said I was "a little on both sides of your fence" to, was... a mixed bag. Which I made clear above.

I said no matter how anyone defines the second death (before the "or" or after it), the second death is eternal.

I know you did, and that's incorrect.

Both of these things are astounding. No, the thing itself is eternal ~ lasting or existing forever, without end

The death itself. Whether a person defines it as 'conscious existence' or 'non-existence'. Either of those is eternal.

LOL! If one is non-existent, his or her punishment cannot be ongoing, much less eternal (lasting or existing forever; without end).

...annihilation does not have eternal suffering to go along with it.

That's the problem exactly. If the punishment is eternal (lasting or existing forever, without end), then annihilation is necessarily eliminated as an description of the punishment, because anything annihilated can no longer be subject to anything, much less punishment.

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Eternal, permanent... same thing.

Nope. See above.

How can we possibly have a sensible conversation when you don't hold to the actual meaning of words?

Permanent is a synonym for eternal.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/eternal
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... us/eternal


Please explain how eternal means something different than permanent.

Are you suggesting that eternal punishment does not mean permanent punishment? Is eternal punishment now temporary?

And there does seem to be a dispute about its permanence, when you or Wootah (or anyone else) claims that annihilation is not (or cannot be) an eternal punishment.

Nope. You have to differentiate between the thing itself ~ the punishment ~ and the thing's effect, or legacy. The punishment's effect/legacy, plainly, is not what's being referred to by "eternal punishment," bur rather the punishment itself.

Yeah - the death is eternal. I have said nothing about 'effect/legacy'. The punishment is (the second) death and that (second) death is eternal, regardless of how you define that (second) death.

Both of these things are astounding. No, the thing itself is eternal ~ lasting or existing forever, without end

The death itself. Whether a person defines it as 'conscious existence' or 'non-existence'. Either of those is eternal.

LOL! If one is non-existent, his or her punishment cannot be ongoing, much less eternal (lasting or existing forever; without end).

...annihilation does not have eternal suffering to go along with it.

That's the problem exactly. If the punishment is eternal (lasting or existing forever, without end), then annihilation is necessarily eliminated as an description of the punishment, because anything annihilated can no longer be subject to anything, much less punishment.

See, I (and others) do have yours and Wootah's argument exactly correct.

What you do not seem to understand is how the punishment can be eternal if there is no eternal suffering to go along with it. But it is not an eternal punishing. It is an eternal punishment. Death - as annihilation - is permanent. It is for all time. It is not temporary. There is no coming back from it.

The punishment... is death. That death (non-existence) is what is eternal; permanent.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy