#3 Jesus on Hell

[Wootah]

Matthew 13
The Parable of the Weeds Explained
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

How can there be a place with weeping and gnashing teeth if all the people are dead or annihilated?

How is that not a judgement of hell that supports traditional doctrine?

#1 Jesus on hell: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38453
#2 Jesus on hell: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38457

[PinSeeker]

Utterly destroyed and yet still existing? That is some strange kind of magic.

One perfectly valid definition of 'destroy' is "(to) put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it." But another definition, just as valid, is "(to) ruin (someone) emotionally or spiritually," and also "(to) defeat (someone) utterly." There's no such thing as "magic."

Thanks for that confirmation. Which is that "destroy" has as "one perfectly valid definition of...put an end to the existence of".

Right; I have never suggested otherwise. Valid in the sense that it can be correct in certain contexts.

But there is another definition. just as perfectly valid. of that same word -- "destroy" -- which is "(to) ruin (someone) emotionally or spiritually." And, contextually, THIS is the correct one.

"To put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it" is -- generally speaking -- a valid definition of "destroy," but specifically -- in the context of the Bible -- it is invalid.

God bless and keep you.

To you also, Checkpoint. Grace and peace to all.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Cutting some things out to try and make this more readable (and less repetitive).

One can only 'realize' something that is true.

Absolutely.

What you have presented is just an interpretation.

And I would say the exact same to you. And we would both be right.

I'm not sure what interpretation you are referring to from me, but there are millions (exaggeration) of interpretations out there that man has come up with, and that are wrong. Interpretation is meaningless unless it is what Christ has revealed, taught. In which case it would not be man's interpretation at all. It would just be truth.

As for 'their worm does not die', there are many sayings that mean something to the generation that uses them, but that meaning may often be lost in translation or from generation to generation. For what reason has man decided that 'their worm does not die' = eternal pain and anguish? Again, the phrase that it comes from is about corpses, and corpses feel no pain.

Also, Christ uses this phrase in connection to 'gehenna', not in connection to Sheol (the world of the dead).

From some of what is described:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

"... Gehenna, the name of a valley on the south and east of Jerusalem [yet apparently beginning on the West, cf. Joshua 15:8; Pressel in Herzog, under the word], which was so called from the cries of the little children who were thrown into the fiery arms of Moloch [which see], i. e. of an idol having the form of a bull. The Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by king Josiah (2 Kings 23:10), that they cast into it not only all manner of refuse, but even the dead bodies of animals and of unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted by the putrefaction, it came to pass that the place was called γέεννα τοῦ πυρός ..."

Nothing lived in that place. Nothing was in anguish or torment. Just as nothing survived Sodom and Gomorrah, which serve as an example 'of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire". Jude 1:7 The towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were not just 'defeated', they were destroyed (nothing remained or remains of them). That is the example we are given of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.


**

Regardless of what a person thinks they know about the phrase, what 'their worm does not die' does not mean - is that people exist in eternal conscious torment and anguish (regardless of what kind of pain). I know this - not because I am interpreting the phrase - but because of what my Lord teaches about His Father (including the love and mercy of the Father), about the lake of fire, and the judgment. Also because - despite people's best attempts at contorting the meaning of the word love - eternal torment is not from love. It is something man would think up (think Dante's inferno), even create to the best of his ability (think of all the instruments of torture that man has come up with and used). Thankfully, for everyone's sake, God's ways are higher than man's ways.

Not to mention the fact that an eternal torment that serves no purpose is just... well... pointless.

As well, the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment is built on other false premises: the immortal soul that cannot be destroyed doctrine, for instance.

The choice that God set before us is between life and death. It is not between life and eternal unending anguish and torment.


But those reasons (and others) have been discussed at great length in other threads, as well as touched upon in the most recent (5 or 6) threads that have been posted.

Shame would make more sense (being a dead thing with maggots), not shame that a person feels (corpses, dead things, feel nothing), but rather a position of shame.

Close! Yes, shame is, if not right on, a very close synonym to anguish and torment, as Jesus uses those terms in Luke 16. The clarification I would make is that shame is only a part – but a significant part, nonetheless – of the anguish described in that passage. And it’s very painful, although not physical. Much shame can certainly cause physical pain (a headache, maybe), but that’s beyond the question, really.

I think you misread what I wrote.

The point is moot though unless you can demonstrate that 'their worm does not die' represents unending emotional anguish and torment.

The Bible does that for me: Jesus does a fine job of that in Luke 16, John does, too in both John 5 and Revelation 20, as demonstrated several times (by me and others)

.

None of those things show 'their worm does not die' represents unending emotional anguish and torment. None of those show unending anguish and torment at all.

For example from your John 5 example:

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.


Some receive the resurrection of life. Some receive the resurrection of judgment.

Nothing there about unending pain and torment.

Man/religion invented the doctrine of 'hell' (as a place of eternal torment).

Only because of the way Christ portrayed it.

Christ Jaheshua did not/does not teach it.

He portrayed it in the manner I am; I am only repeating what He said.

He did not, but... He is a living being. One does not have to rely upon a text. One can always go to Christ, the true and living Word of God, and ask Him for the truth of this (and any other) matter.

It is also not found in the OT.

Yes it is; see Psalm 9, particularly verses 15-17.

Eternal torment and anguish in 'hell' is not at all in view in Psalm 9:15-17.

The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug;
their feet are caught in the net they have hidden.
16
[The LORD] is known by his acts of justice;
the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands.[c]
17
The wicked go down to the realm of the dead,
all the nations that forget God.

Regarding “sheol,” the word “Sheol” in Hebrew is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament. Sometimes it refers to the realm of the dead or the nether world. Sometimes it has a more of a general connotation: both the righteous and the wicked go to Sheol, in terms of the grave. But sometimes it has much more of a negative connotation in terms of the wicked going to Sheol, and it being a place that is not good, a place in which it’s not a part of the land of the living, so it has a negative connotation – which is the case with Psalm 9:15-17 and other passages like it.

I don't recall saying that Sheol had a good connotation. Death is an enemy, the world of the dead exists because people die. Regardless, the cases you cited above all state that Sheol is the world of the dead.

And that prepares us then for the New Testament, for when Jesus comes on the scene, and in the teaching of Jesus to the people in his context there was a more fully developed idea that there is a place of judgment.

But sheol is not that place of judgment. The dead come OUT Of the world of the dead to stand before the throne, some being resurrected to LIFE and some being resurrected to judgment (and so, the second death). Those who receive the resurrection of judgment (and the second death) are not cast back into Sheol.

…the Rich man is in Hades - the world of the dead - which is emptied out at the Judgment. Rev 20: 13).

Ah! “Emptied out,” yes. Fantastic. Yes, let’s take a look at that. Actually, let’s take a look at something else similar, and then come back to it. In Philippians 2, Paul tells us that Jesus emptied Himself (verse 7) of His “equality with God” (the Father… verse 6).

My use of the word 'empty out' was just a layman description. The actual statement is that Hades gives up the dead in it; same with the sea. It is a completely different word than is being used in Philippians.


Hades gives up the dead in it:

didomi

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... lexResults

Christ emptied himself:

kenoo

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... /mgnt/0-1/

You're drawing a parallel where there is no parallel.

In a similar vein – because the same verbiage is used by John – Hades (which, like the Hebrew ‘Sheol,’ is similarly used in a variety of ways but sometimes with the most negative of connotations) gives up the dead at the judgment, and Christ sends these people – who are still unrepentant sinners – away into “outer darkness,” as it is called in Matthew 25.

Everything that occurs in Matt 25 occurs at the return of Christ (which I think you agree), but to people who are yet alive on the earth when He returns. There is no mention of a resurrection (of the dead), or the judgment, because the resurrection of the dead (from Rev 20) has not yet happened.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

Thank you, and to you as well.

[PinSeeker]

Cutting some things out to try and make this more readable (and less repetitive).

What, by being repetitive?

What you have presented is just an interpretation.

And I would say the exact same to you. And we would both be right.

I'm not sure what interpretation you are referring to from me.

Pretty much everything you're saying in rebuttal to what you say is my interpretation.

...there are millions (exaggeration) of interpretations out there that man has come up with, and that are wrong.

Agreed, and yours is one of them.

For what reason has man decided that 'their worm does not die' = eternal pain and anguish?

Put very simply, it is what it is.

Again, the phrase that it comes from is about corpses, and corpses feel no pain.

Where do you see anything about corpses, Tammy? Aside from the fact that the word 'corpse' is not use by our Lord there, right? He talks about some possibly having "a great millstone were hung around (their) neck and (being) thrown into the sea," "going with two hands to the unquenchable fire," and "with two feet being thrown into hell." There's absolutely nothing about corpses there... although your interpretation requires that actually be the case, but it is not. It's about people, sure, but not corpses. And people can certainly feel pain (torment, anguish)...

Also, Christ uses this phrase in connection to 'gehenna', not in connection to Sheol (the world of the dead).

I thought you were cutting out repetition... This is really a non sequitur; Christ uses the example of Gehenna to present a terrifying temporal picture of the unending, eternal judgment of the unrepentant. Jesus is referring to Isaiah's prophecy, and Isaiah also says of the eternal (forever) punishment from God, "Behold, all you who kindle a fire, who equip yourselves with burning torches! Walk by the light of your fire, and by the torches that you have kindled! This you have from my hand: you shall lie down in torment" (50:11) In "from my hand," Isaiah is not speaking of himself, but relaying the words of God Himself.

...nothing survived Sodom and Gomorrah, which serve as an example 'of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire". Jude 1:7 The towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were not just 'defeated', they were destroyed (nothing remained or remains of them). That is the example we are given of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The permanence and eternality of God's judgment of sin is what is on display here, too. Not annihilation.

Regardless of what a person thinks they know about the phrase, what 'their worm does not die' does not mean - is that people exist in eternal conscious torment and anguish (regardless of what kind of pain).

Yes it does. It means they exist. The torment, anguish, and emotional pain are experienced by the unrepentant because they exist in the unending punishment of God, the result of His final judgment. I respect your opinion, but it does.

I know this - not because I am interpreting the phrase - but because of what my Lord teaches about His Father (including the love and mercy of the Father), about the lake of fire, and the judgment.

I say the exact same thing. One of us is wrong.

Also because - despite people's best attempts at contorting the meaning of the word love - eternal torment is not from love.

Ah, so we are back to the real issue -- at least one of them -- which is what we think love is. And again, the torment is just the internal reaction of the unrepentant. Torment is not of God, as He, of course, does not sin.

Thankfully, for everyone's sake, God's ways are higher than man's ways.

That they are, for sure. And this is also true of love. I would argue that God's punishment of sin is most certainly part of His love; it would be unloving for God not to punish sin. As Paul says in Roman 9:21-24, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" The answer to that is, of course He does. And then, "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory -- even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?" Paul is obviously saying this is exactly what He did and is doing. Yes, most certainly, God's ways are higher than man's ways. His love is higher (infinitely higher, really) than man's love.

Not to mention the fact that an eternal torment that serves no purpose is just... well... pointless.

Well, again... ... God is not responsible for how one reacts or what one experiences because of His punishment of sin. And I would use Paul's words in Romans 9 again, here, that God's purposes in making some for honorable use and some for dishonorable use are certainly not "pointless" in any shape, form, or fashion, but to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, and for His own glory, which is His chief end.

...the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment is built on other false premises...

In your opinion. And I would say the same thing about the idea of annihilation, that it is built on false premises.

...the immortal soul that cannot be destroyed doctrine, for instance.

God created us in His image. A part of that is that we will exist -- in one place or the other -- in the age to come (eternity).

The choice that God set before us is between life and death. It is not between life and eternal unending anguish and torment.

True, I agree, but yet again, the anguish and torment are not of God. The judgment and punishment certainly are, but not the anguish or torment. The unending anguish and torment are merely (although no mere thing) the experience of the unrepentant as a result of that judgment and in that punishment.

The point is moot though unless you can demonstrate that 'their worm does not die' represents unending emotional anguish and torment.

The Bible does that for me: Jesus does a fine job of that in Luke 16, John does, too in both John 5 and Revelation 20, as demonstrated several times (by me and others).

None of those things show 'their worm does not die' represents unending emotional anguish and torment. None of those show unending anguish and torment at all. For example from your John 5 example... Some receive the resurrection of life. Some receive the resurrection of judgment. Nothing there about unending pain and torment.

Luke 16 and Revelation 20 most certainly do, and you're taking John 5 in isolation from those two passages, which should not be done.

Man/religion invented the doctrine of 'hell' (as a place of eternal torment).

No one invented anything. "Man/religion" only holds this doctrine (belief, understanding) because this is the way Christ -- and the Holy Spirit, through various writers of the Bible -- portrayed it.

Christ Jaheshua did not/does not teach it.

He portrayed it in the manner I am; I am only repeating what He said.

He did not...

Yes He did...

It is also not found in the OT.

Yes it is; see Psalm 9, particularly verses 15-17.

Eternal torment and anguish in 'hell' is not at all in view in Psalm 9:15-17.

The punishment of sin is most assuredly in view in verse 17 in particular. You keep doing that... conflating God's judgment and punishment with unrepentant man's reaction to it and/or experience from it. This should not be done, but you're certainly your own person and can do what you want.

I don't recall saying that Sheol had a good connotation.

Not sure why you would say this. I don't recall ever saying or insinuating that you did.

But sheol is not that place of judgment. The dead come OUT Of the world of the dead to stand before the throne, some being resurrected to LIFE and some being resurrected to judgment (and so, the second death). Those who receive the resurrection of judgment (and the second death) are not cast back into Sheol.

But Sheol, Tammy -- Death and Hades ultimately go into the "lake of fire" with the devil and his minions and the unrepentant. This will take us back to your annihilation... uh, stuff... again, I'm sure. Yet again, what should be understood here is that all that -- death, Hades, the devil and his minions, and unrepentant sinners and the possibility of entering into or experiencing or being in the presence of these things are permanently removed from the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21.

Hades gives up the dead in it... didomi... Christ emptied himself... kenoo. You're drawing a parallel where there is no parallel.

If someone or something gives up something, that person or that thing is surely emptied of it, at least in the abstract sense. There is most definitely a parallel.

Everything that occurs in Matt 25 occurs at the return of Christ (which I think you agree), but to people who are yet alive on the earth when He returns. There is no mention of a resurrection (of the dead), or the judgment, because the resurrection of the dead (from Rev 20) has not yet happened.

Yeah, we've discussed this at length, too. Yes, the resurrection of the dead has most assuredly happened at the point of the Judgment:

• The millennium or Revelation 20 stretches from Pentecost (about 2000 years ago) to Jesus's return (yet to happen).

• Those who are still alive at the time of His return go out to meet Him and usher Him in as the royalty He is (1 Thessalonians 4). In His return, He brings all the saints that have gone before with Him.

• Then the resurrection, which is general -- some resurrected to eternal life and some to judgment -- takes place.

• Then... "(b)efore Him (Jesus) will be gathered all the nations, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left" (Matthew 25:31-32).

• Then the Judgment

• Then the sending away of the unrepentant (Matthew 25:33-46, Revelation 20:11-15)

• And then... the new heaven and new earth... (Revelation 21:1-8)

Yes, I know, your opinion is otherwise. You think I get the order wrong. I'm well aware of that; I think the same thing of you. No need to keep repeating yourself (even right after you said you're cutting out the repetition), but I'll play along...

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[Checkpoint]

Utterly destroyed and yet still existing? That is some strange kind of magic.

One perfectly valid definition of 'destroy' is "(to) put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it." But another definition, just as valid, is "(to) ruin (someone) emotionally or spiritually," and also "(to) defeat (someone) utterly." There's no such thing as "magic."

Thanks for that confirmation. Which is that "destroy" has as "one perfectly valid definition of...put an end to the existence of".

Right; I have never suggested otherwise. Valid in the sense that it can be correct in certain contexts.

But there is another definition. just as perfectly valid. of that same word -- "destroy" -- which is "(to) ruin (someone) emotionally or spiritually." And, contextually, THIS is the correct one.

"To put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it" is -- generally speaking -- a valid definition of "destroy," but specifically -- in the context of the Bible -- it is invalid.

On the contrary, it is valid in the context of the Bible.

For example:

Psalm 59:13
consume them in Your wrath, consume them till they are no more/are not.

Isaiah 29:20
For ceased has the tyrant, and consumed has been the scorner, and cut off have been all watching for iniquity.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

On the contrary, it is valid in the context of the Bible.

Nope. Annihilation with regard to eternity is absolutely never in the context of any part of the Bible.

• Psalm 59:13 -- consume them in Your wrath, consume them till they are no more/are not.

As he so often does, David is calling on the Lord for help, here, as you know. He's not pleading for anyone's eternal fate, but temporal.

• Isaiah 29:20 -- For ceased has the tyrant, and consumed has been the scorner, and cut off have been all watching for iniquity.

This passage is about the siege of Jerusalem. Isaiah is doing much the same thing here as David above.

Eternal annihilation is not intimated in either of these two references.

Grace and peace to you, also.

[Tcg]

On the contrary, it is valid in the context of the Bible.

Nope. Annihilation with regard to eternity is absolutely never in the context of any part of the Bible.

• Psalm 59:13 -- consume them in Your wrath, consume them till they are no more/are not.

As he so often does, David is calling on the Lord for help, here, as you know. He's not pleading for anyone's eternal fate, but temporal.

You consider the phrase, "consume them till they are no more", to be referring to a temporary outcome? How would an eternal outcome be referred to if not precisely like this?


Tcg

[PinSeeker]

You consider the phrase, "consume them till they are no more", to be referring to a temporary outcome?

No.

How would an eternal outcome be referred to if not precisely like this?

Not sure if I understand this question, but I think my answer above preempts this one.

My question to you would be, do you know what a Psalm is? I mean, not that it's not true, but you do know, Tcg, that when you are reading a Psalm, you are reading poetry, right?

Grace and peace to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Cutting some things out to try and make this more readable (and less repetitive).

What, by being repetitive?

I did say 'try' ; )

Besides, more people are reading than just you and me.

What you have presented is just an interpretation.

And I would say the exact same to you. And we would both be right.

I'm not sure what interpretation you are referring to from me.

Pretty much everything you're saying in rebuttal to what you say is my interpretation.

Well then you would not be right.

For what reason has man decided that 'their worm does not die' = eternal pain and anguish?

Put very simply, it is what it is.

So no reason then except that "man says so".

Again, the phrase that it comes from is about corpses, and corpses feel no pain.

Where do you see anything about corpses, Tammy? Aside from the fact that the word 'corpse' is not use by our Lord there, right? He talks about some possibly having "a great millstone were hung around (their) neck and (being) thrown into the sea," "going with two hands to the unquenchable fire," and "with two feet being thrown into hell." There's absolutely nothing about corpses there... although your interpretation requires that actually be the case, but it is not. It's about people, sure, but not corpses. And people can certainly feel pain (torment, anguish)...

As I said, the phrase comes from a verse in Isaiah (66:24):

And they have gone forth, And looked on the carcasses of the men Who are transgressing against me, For their worm dieth not, And their fire is not quenched, And they have been an abhorrence to all flesh!

...nothing survived Sodom and Gomorrah, which serve as an example 'of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire". Jude 1:7 The towns of Sodom and Gomorrah were not just 'defeated', they were destroyed (nothing remained or remains of them). That is the example we are given of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

The permanence and eternality of God's judgment of sin is what is on display here, too. Not annihilation.

Not gonna give a reason to support your statement? What makes you draw that distinction? Why is this an example of eternity, rather than an example of complete and utter destruction (as in, they are no more, nothing remained of them except ashes)?

Note Peter also says:

"...if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly..."

I know this - not because I am interpreting the phrase - but because of what my Lord teaches about His Father (including the love and mercy of the Father), about the lake of fire, and the judgment.

I say the exact same thing. One of us is wrong.

You don't say the exact same thing. You said (at the top of the post) that it would be right to say that what you are presenting is just an interpretation. That is not the same thing as listening to what Christ teaches about His Father (including the love and mercy of His Father), about the lake of fire, and the judgment.

Also because - despite people's best attempts at contorting the meaning of the word love - eternal torment is not from love.

Ah, so we are back to the real issue -- at least one of them -- which is what we think love is. And again, the torment is just the internal reaction of the unrepentant. Torment is not of God, as He, of course, does not sin.

Thankfully, for everyone's sake, God's ways are higher than man's ways.

That they are, for sure. And this is also true of love. I would argue that God's punishment of sin is most certainly part of His love; it would be unloving for God not to punish sin.

Unending punishment just for the sake of punishment?

There is no point to that. There is no purpose. Discipline is from love, certainly. But discipline is about teaching, refining, producing something good. Eternal punishment (of a conscious, existing, person) serves no purpose, produces nothing good, teaches nothing.

So where is the love in it?

As Paul says in Roman 9:21-24, "Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?" The answer to that is, of course He does. And then, "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory -- even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?"

Nothing in there about eternal torment.

Do note the word destruction, though.

Not to mention the fact that an eternal torment that serves no purpose is just... well... pointless.

Well, again... ... God is not responsible for how one reacts or what one experiences because of His punishment of sin. And I would use Paul's words in Romans 9 again, here, that God's purposes in making some for honorable use and some for dishonorable use are certainly not "pointless" in any shape, form, or fashion, but to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, and for His own glory, which is His chief end.

Yeah, because for some reason, man thinks sin must be punished with something much worse than death. So again, man dreams up things like Dante's inferno, and eternal conscious torment (be it emotional or physical, both have been part of the traditional doctrine of 'hell', from which your doctrine comes).

But we are being saved from death.

Not eternal torture or torment.

From death.

Again, the choice before us is life - or - death.

...the idea of hell as a place of eternal torment is built on other false premises...

In your opinion. And I would say the same thing about the idea of annihilation, that it is built on false premises.

...the immortal soul that cannot be destroyed doctrine, for instance.

God created us in His image. A part of that is that we will exist -- in one place or the other -- in the age to come (eternity).

God created Adam in His image. We are created in the image of Adam (AFTER sin and death entered into Adam). We are not in the image of God right now. We can know that for a fact because we (if we are in Christ) are being MADE INTO the image of Christ, who is Himself the image of God. If we are BEING MADE INTO something, we are not currently that thing.

And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. 2 corinth 3:18

And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so SHALL WE bear the image of the heavenly man. 1 Corinth 15:49

(the earthly man being Adam, the heavenly man being Christ)

**

Even so, Adam (and Eve, the male and female) had to eat from the Tree of Life in order to live forever. God does not have to do this. THEREFORE, just because Adam was made in the image of God, doesn't mean that Adam had ALL the same attributes as God.

So this is just one false premise that the doctrine of 'eternal torment in hell' is based upon.

The point is moot though unless you can demonstrate that 'their worm does not die' represents unending emotional anguish and torment.

The Bible does that for me: Jesus does a fine job of that in Luke 16, John does, too in both John 5 and Revelation 20, as demonstrated several times (by me and others).

None of those things show 'their worm does not die' represents unending emotional anguish and torment. None of those show unending anguish and torment at all. For example from your John 5 example... Some receive the resurrection of life. Some receive the resurrection of judgment. Nothing there about unending pain and torment.

Luke 16 and Revelation 20 most certainly do, and you're taking John 5 in isolation from those two passages, which should not be done.

None of those passages speak of unending pain and torment.

It is also not found in the OT.

Yes it is; see Psalm 9, particularly verses 15-17.

Eternal torment and anguish in 'hell' is not at all in view in Psalm 9:15-17.

The punishment of sin is most assuredly in view in verse 17 in particular. You keep doing that... conflating God's judgment and punishment with unrepentant man's reaction to it and/or experience from it. This should not be done, but you're certainly your own person and can do what you want.

I'm not doing that at all. Eternal torment and anguish are not in view in Psalm 9:15-17

15 The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug;
their feet are caught in the net they have hidden.
16
The Lord is known by his acts of justice;
the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands.[c]
17
The wicked go down to the realm of the dead,
all the nations that forget God.

So where is it? Where is this eternal torment and anguish mentioned in Psalm 9:15-17?

I don't recall saying that Sheol had a good connotation.

Not sure why you would say this. I don't recall ever saying or insinuating that you did.

You had emphasized that Sheol had a negative connotation. I'm not sure why you did that unless you thought I was saying it was something good.

But sheol is not that place of judgment. The dead come OUT Of the world of the dead to stand before the throne, some being resurrected to LIFE and some being resurrected to judgment (and so, the second death). Those who receive the resurrection of judgment (and the second death) are not cast back into Sheol.

But Sheol, Tammy -- Death and Hades ultimately go into the "lake of fire" with the devil and his minions and the unrepentant.

Yes, death and hades go into the lake of fire.

Where is it mentioned that those who are resurrected to judgment and the second death go back into Sheol?

This will take us back to your annihilation... uh, stuff... again, I'm sure. Yet again, what should be understood here is that all that -- death, Hades, the devil and his minions, and unrepentant sinners and the possibility of entering into or experiencing or being in the presence of these things are permanently removed from the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21.

Well, annihilation is a pretty permanent removal.

Everything that occurs in Matt 25 occurs at the return of Christ (which I think you agree), but to people who are yet alive on the earth when He returns. There is no mention of a resurrection (of the dead), or the judgment, because the resurrection of the dead (from Rev 20) has not yet happened.

Yeah, we've discussed this at length, too.

We have, but no matter what order you set forth, the fact remains that there is no mention of the resurrection of the dead and judgment at the return of Christ (see Matt 25, for instance).

The reason there is no mention of it, is because it does not happen at this time (at the return of Christ).



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

[PinSeeker]

Well then you would not be right.

I'm... well aware of your oft-stated, repeated (see what I did there?) opinion.

For what reason has man decided that 'their worm does not die' = eternal pain and anguish?

Put very simply, it is what it is.

So no reason then except that "man says so".

Well, only if it weren't what God says in His Word... and what Jesus says... which is the same thing (and, as you would hopefully agree, is what really matters). And, anticipating your retort, that gets us back to the answer immediately above.

As I said, the phrase comes from a verse in Isaiah (66:24)...

Yes, I know precisely where it comes from. We should take great care -- as Jesus did in Mark 9 -- with the symbolism used by the Isaiah not only in Isaiah 66, but throughout his prophecy. And again we are back to the first answer above. I'll leave it at that.

I know this - not because I am interpreting the phrase - but because of what my Lord teaches about His Father (including the love and mercy of the Father), about the lake of fire, and the judgment.

I say the exact same thing. One of us is wrong.

You don't say the exact same thing. You said (at the top of the post) that it would be right to say that what you are presenting is just an interpretation. That is not the same thing as listening to what Christ teaches about His Father (including the love and mercy of His Father), about the lake of fire, and the judgment.

Ah, so now we're going to start arguing about what I say and don't say... LOL! Okay, let me clarify (as if that should be necessary): Both what you are saying and what I am saying are "interpretations" in the sense that they are different understandings of the same texts. So we are both in the same boat as far as that goes. Further, we both say that these understandings that we have -- different as they may be -- we have received from the Lord, so yes, we both say the exact same thing as far as that goes.

Also because - despite people's best attempts at contorting the meaning of the word love - eternal torment is not from love.

Ah, so we are back to the real issue -- at least one of them -- which is what we think love is. And again, the torment is just the internal reaction of the unrepentant. Torment is not of God, as He, of course, does not sin.

Thankfully, for everyone's sake, God's ways are higher than man's ways.

That they are, for sure. And this is also true of love. I would argue that God's punishment of sin is most certainly part of His love; it would be unloving for God not to punish sin.

Unending punishment just for the sake of punishment? There is no point to that. There is no purpose.

No, for the sake of justice. His perfect justice... for His sake first -- His glory -- and then for ours as those who love Him. So there is a point, a purpose (as there is to everything He does) -- His -- and, as Job says, His purposes cannot be thwarted.

Eternal punishment (of a conscious, existing, person) serves no purpose, produces nothing good, teaches nothing. Discipline is from love, certainly. But discipline is about teaching, refining, producing something good. Eternal punishment (of a conscious, existing, person) serves no purpose, produces nothing good, teaches nothing. So where is the love in it?

How can you (or I) make any judgment about what is eternally good or bad? You (and I) can't, because you are not (and I am not) eternal -- of eternity (yet... ). Like you said, and I wholeheartedly agree -- because God says it in Isaiah 55 -- His thoughts are not our thoughts, our ways not His. His ways are much higher than our ways, His thoughts much higher than ours. And like David says (in Psalm 139), such knowledge is too wonderful for us; it is high, and we cannot attain it.

As Paul says in Roman 9:21-24... Nothing in there about eternal torment. Do note the word destruction, though.

Right, Paul is speaking of God's purposes here, and tormenting folks is not and never will be among those purposes... because, for sure, sin of any kind is not His purpose, only righteousness and His glory. But the punishment of sin and those who are unrepentant of it is/are certainly among His purposes, though, precisely because His chief end is His righteousness and glory. The eternal reality of such (destruction) is chief among the annihilationist's misunderstandings. God will deliver the sinner, because of His judgment -- which is demanded by His justice, which must be upheld because of His righteousness and glory -- of unrepentant sinners, who remain in their sin, to utter ruin. This is their destruction.

for some reason, man thinks sin must be punished with something much worse than death.

Ah! So you admit there is a punishment much worse than annihilation! Well that's a step in the right direction. Yes, like I have said, speaking from our perspective -- or rather putting it in terms we can readily understand -- life imprisonment is, really, much worse than the death penalty. And, carrying it just a bit further, this punishment, life imprisonment, is a lasting torment, and those experiencing and enduring this life imprisonment are anguished.

God created us in His image. A part of that is that we will exist -- in one place or the other -- in the age to come (eternity).

God created Adam in His image.

And Adam is the federal head of the human race. What Adam was, we are.

We are not in the image of God right now.

We are. Not perfectly, as a result of Adam's fall in Genesis 3, but we are.

...we (if we are in Christ) are being MADE INTO the image of Christ...

Right, we are being made like God, into the image of Christ, as you say. And one day this will be complete -- which is a certainty, so we can live as if it is complete now. Paul is very clear in this. Our identity is now in Christ.

...who is Himself the image of God.

Right, He is God. And we will be like Him, we will finally be conformed to Him. Not that we will ever be Him, of course, but we will be like Him.

If we are BEING MADE INTO something, we are not currently that thing.

Right, but your way in getting here is fraught with error. Ah... no offense intended, sorry... You're referring to what Paul says in Colossians 1:15 (in addition to 1st and 2nd Corinthians; Paul really says the same things in all his letters, but often in different ways). Yes, Christ is the image of the invisible God, and we are merely in the image of God... which is no mere thing, of course, but a far different thing than actually being the image of God.

THEREFORE, just because Adam was made in the image of God, doesn't mean that Adam had ALL the same attributes as God.

Yeah, I'm not sure how you got off on this rabbit trail (of sorts; surely not to say that it actually is a rabbit trail... ), but I have never said or insinuated anything remotely contradictory to what you say here. Adam and Eve (and thus we, as their progeny) are God's creation -- creatures, as opposed to the Creator.

So this is just one false premise that the doctrine of 'eternal torment in hell' is based upon.

Another opinion...

Luke 16 and Revelation 20 most certainly do, and you're taking John 5 in isolation from those two passages, which should not be done.

None of those passages speak of unending pain and torment.

Another opinion. They do, actually:

• Directly from Luke 16, "(t)he rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment..." and ..."in anguish in this flame..." was told that "...between (Abraham and his progeny) and (him, who represents all the unrepentant) a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from (where Abraham is) to (where the rich man is) may not be able, and none may cross from (where the rich man is) to (where Abraham and his progeny are).

• Directly from Revelation 20, "...the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever... "...if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Eternal torment and anguish are not in view in Psalm 9:15-17

They are. Just because they are not explicitly mentioned does not mean they are not in view. If I say, "Tammy went to town," obviously, Tammy when to town for some reason. Or, well, experienced something while there...

15 The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug;
their feet are caught in the net they have hidden.
16 The Lord is known by his acts of justice;
the wicked are ensnared by the work of their hands.
17 The wicked go down to the realm of the dead,
all the nations that forget God.

So where is it? Where is this eternal torment and anguish mentioned in Psalm 9:15-17?

It is implied in verse 17, as I said. They will experience... something... in the realm of the dead. See above.

I don't recall saying that Sheol had a good connotation.

Not sure why you would say this. I don't recall ever saying or insinuating that you did.

You had emphasized that Sheol had a negative connotation. I'm not sure why you did that unless you thought I was saying it was something good.

LOL! Okay, sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying, I guess... Hoo, boy.

But sheol is not that place of judgment. The dead come OUT Of the world of the dead to stand before the throne, some being resurrected to LIFE and some being resurrected to judgment (and so, the second death). Those who receive the resurrection of judgment (and the second death) are not cast back into Sheol.

But Sheol, Tammy -- Death and Hades ultimately go into the "lake of fire" with the devil and his minions and the unrepentant.

Yes, death and hades go into the lake of fire.

Right, along with anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life, who, like the devil and the beast and the false prophet, will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Not to say that death and Hades will be tormented like the devil and his minions and the unrepentant, but death and Hades will no longer be in the presence of -- in the sense of being a possibility for -- those whose names are found in the book of life. Right now, though, even we, as Psalm 23 says, walk through the valley of the shadow of death.

Yes, death and hades go into the lake of fire. Where is it mentioned that those who are resurrected to judgment and the second death go back into Sheol?

See above.

This will take us back to your annihilation... uh, stuff... again, I'm sure. Yet again, what should be understood here is that all that -- death, Hades, the devil and his minions, and unrepentant sinners and the possibility of entering into or experiencing or being in the presence of these things are permanently removed from the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21.

Well, annihilation is a pretty permanent removal.

So is being sent to "outer darkness."

Everything that occurs in Matt 25 occurs at the return of Christ (which I think you agree), but to people who are yet alive on the earth when He returns. There is no mention of a resurrection (of the dead), or the judgment, because the resurrection of the dead (from Rev 20) has not yet happened.

Yeah, we've discussed this at length, too.

We have, but no matter what order you set forth, the fact remains that there is no mention of the resurrection of the dead and judgment at the return of Christ (see Matt 25, for instance).
The reason there is no mention of it, is because it does not happen at this time (at the return of Christ).

Right, because in the context of Matthew 25:31-46, it (Christ's return) has already happened. That's the immediate point here, for goodness's sake. Christ has to return first before the resurrection and the final Judgment, because that's what necessarily has to precede the resurrection and Judgment, because otherwise it cannot happen, because He is the executer of the resurrection and Judgment. LOL!

Whew!!! Okay. Grace and peace to you.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #69]

tam wrote: ↑For what reason has man decided that 'their worm does not die' = eternal pain and anguish?

Put very simply, it is what it is.

So no reason then except that "man says so".

Well, only if it weren't what God says in His Word... and what Jesus says... which is the same thing (and, as you would hopefully agree, is what really matters). And, anticipating your retort, that gets us back to the answer immediately above.

Tam told you what God said in His Word, in Isaiah 66 about "their worm"".

Jesus said the same thing in Mark 9.

You changed what is there, "their worm does not die", to "eternal pain and anguish".

That is, from "it is what it is" to, effectively, "it is what it is not".

God bless.