Eternal Conscious Torment

[The Tanager]

As of right now I would consider myself an Annihilationist in regards to my view of Hell. I'm not looking to try to push Annihilationism or get into a debate between the various views. I want to look more deeply into the issues around what Hell is with other minds and I would love to hear from those who believe in the eternal conscious torment view, to the various reasons you believe it makes sense within Christianity. I'm looking to challenge my view and I was hoping you all could help me out.

[Claire Evans]

You must believe what you want to believe.

Are you saying we should believe what we want to rather than having rational reasons to believe something to be the truth?

Not when the debate about a certain point is going nowhere.

You don't understand. Those evil people don't see heaven as a reward. They don't want to go there. They are appalled by good and hate God. Annihilation is better to them.

But it's not better for them.

Yes, it is! Anything is better than spending an eternity with God!

1 Peter 2:24

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."

But why think "bearing our sins" is equal to "being full of sin"?

Because in order for us to be saved, Jesus had to be guilty of all the sin ever committed by taking on all the sin. It was like He had committed every sin. The more one sins, the more one is distant to God. That is why Jesus asked why the Father had forsaken Him.

Matthew 8:17

This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

What is the context of this verse? Jesus cures the sick and demon-possessed. That is what Matthew directly says fulfills the verse in Isaiah. This isn't about the cross.

Disease is a metaphor of sin in this case.

Matthew 5

14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again [after healing the paralytic man]. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.� 15 The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well.

Being resurrected from the dead meant that Jesus was not annihilated.

I agree. I never said Jesus was annihilated. You are saying that Jesus had to experience our experience of Hell to bear our sins. I don't. You say Hell is eternal torment. So, you think Jesus is in eternal torment?

What happens when one is full of sin? They are separated from God. Do you agree?

Jesus is not in eternal torment because He conquered sin and rose from the dead!

You said in post 92:


Claire Evans wrote:
If one is in oblivion, they cannot be aware they are being punished.

You:


And you think God needs or wants to make them realize how wicked they were? Like an eternal "I told you so"?

That is why I brought up the "I-told-you-so".

I know why you brought it up, I'm wondering why you think it applies to annihilation and/or why it doesn't apply eternal torment.

I don't believe it is an "i-told-you-so" scenerio in either view. You are making that claim, not me.

Eternal worms represent a never ending state of a person. They are dead in sin. Their punishment is eternal hence the words, "and the fire is not quenched".

Then you would have to say that the non-eternal worm represents an ending state of a person. On the surface, we may say "That's right, it represents the person is dead." But I don't think that is accurate. The worm represents shame, not that the person is dead. Those who died in battle, if you take the worm away (i.e., give the body a proper burial), this doesn't change the state of the person being dead. That tells me that the worm is about shame, not the state of the person being dead. But perhaps we will have to just disagree here.

I agree to disagree.

Because how can God on earth constantly kindle a fire? It doesn't take fire to burn for an eternity to burn up a body.

Where does it say in Isaiah 30:33 that God constantly kindles the fire? It just says God kindles it in the translation you gave.

It says "for eternity". That's constantly kindling.

The "whole body" is metaphoric. Of course a body cannot go to hell, whether it means eternal torment or you claim that it means annihilation.

Metaphoric of what? I thought you said you believe in the bodily resurrection of everyone before the final judgment. Maybe I was wrong there?



If you don't believe we will have a body, I still don't see why this verse doesn't fit both of our views. If eternal torment is true, your "whole body" is eternally tormented. So, you should have just lost "a hand" and gone to Heaven. If annihilation is true, your "whole body" is annihilated. So, you should have just lost "a hand" and gone to Heaven.

No. The example of cutting the hand off is a metaphor. One's physical body doesn't get tossed into hell. The corpse is not going to resurrect. Some of them get cremated. We know that those who will have eternal life will have glorified bodies, so we must ask the question: what form on judgement day will the condemned have. I think it is difficult to ponder because we think of time as linear. The truth is, we just don't know.

Why can an eternal fire annihilate someone? A fire doesn't need to be eternal to burn a body. Eternal means without end. Annihilation is not an ongoing punishment.

The verse says the fire is not quenched, not that it is eternal. It is paired with a worm that doesn't die. Which is talking about shame again. These bodies aren't being given a proper burial to shame them and their families.

Annihilation is ongoing in a sense. Obviously, it is a different way than eternal torment is ongoing. But with annihilationism there is no reversing things, no changing the situation. It is final. Just like you believe there will be no getting out of eternal torment; it is a final and irrevocable state.

Tell me, does it scare you that there is such a thing as eternal torment?

In those verses, you can't weep and gnash teeth after being annihilated. Annihilation comes first, what you think hell is, then gnashing of teeth and weeping. How's that possible unless there is consciousness in hell?

Why do you think annihilation comes first? The passage says Hell will involve weeping and gnashing of teeth, but doesn't give a timeline of Hell. There is room for that happening and then being followed by annihilation and no more weeping and gnashing of teeth. The passages don't say the weeping will go on forever, it just says Hell will involve weeping and gnashing of teeth

There is a timeline and that is the gnashing of teeth and being cast into hell.

Matthew 13:

They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It does not say there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth and then hell fire.

I already gave you an explanation of the "ages of ages" argument and you have disregarded it.

Then I honestly missed it. Could you point me to where you said it, so I can look back over it or repeat it for me again? I really am trying to approach this humbly as fellow children of God and I don't want to misrepresent you or misunderstand you or miss your responses.

You did answer it but you disregarded my explanation.

Here is my explanation:

If we are going to refer to "age" as meaning a limited time span, then we need to apply this to God also.

Forever in Greek is translated as ai�nas which appears in Revelation 20:10. The English translation is age.

http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/20-10.htm



However, 1 Timothy 1:17 says:

1 Timothy 1:17New International Version (NIV)

17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The Greek translation is:


tw de basilei twn aiwnwn afqartw aoratw monw sofw qew timh kai doxa eiV touV aiwnaV twn aiwnwn amhn

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B54C001.htm#V17


The transliteration of aiwnaV is aion.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... mothy+1:17

So if what you say is correct, then God only has glory and honour for a limited time.


Post 64:

Here is yours:


Claire Evans wrote:
So if what you say is correct, then God only has glory and honour for a limited time.


Not at all. Different authors (like we have in Timothy and Revelation) could be using it in different ways. Even the same author could be using it in different ways in their own writings. That's why we look at context.

Now, if all we had to go on for God's length of existence was 1 Timothy 1:17, then we couldn't conclude God was necessarily eternal in the sense you mean. But we don't have only that verse. The rest of Scripture paints a different picture of that, doesn't it? The rest of Scripture doesn't clarify this in regards to Hell, however.

Then I went on to provide scriptures that support hell being eternal, thus getting onto the topic of the worm.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 103 by Claire Evans]


"We know that being full of sin condemns one to hell. Jesus was full of sin yet He didn't face annihilation. He was fully aware of the horrors of hell. "

If Jesus was full of sin I'd like a quote so to read it for myself.

1 Peter 2:24

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."

Matthew 8:17

This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

'He bore our sins'

Bore the burden - definition of bore the burden by The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bore+the+burden
To carry on one's person from one place to another: bore the suitcase to the ... beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein to bear, Sanskrit bharati he carries] ...

'He took our infirmities and carried away our diseases'

As above, so different from - 'full of sin' insinuating his sin.

[The Tanager]

Not when the debate about a certain point is going nowhere.

What do you mean that it is going nowhere? You are saying something is true and I agree that if it is true, then this would change things. And so I'm asking for what reasons you believe it is true.

Yes, it is! Anything is better than spending an eternity with God!

From their perspective, but not from the perspective of truth.

But let's follow your line of thought here in regards to eternal torment. Anything is better than eternity with God to them. So, eternal torment is in the same boat as annihilation with your reasoning.

Because in order for us to be saved, Jesus had to be guilty of all the sin ever committed by taking on all the sin. It was like He had committed every sin.

All you have done here is restate your belief; I'm asking why you believe that. Why did Jesus have to be guilty of all the sin ever committed? Why doesn't bearing our sins in 1 Peter 2:24 and Isaiah 53 simply mean taking them away, of cleansing us of them? We have now died to them and can live for righteousness. We have been healed by the cross.

The more one sins, the more one is distant to God. That is why Jesus asked why the Father had forsaken Him.

That's one possible interpretation of Matt 27:24/Mark 15:34. Another is that, like rabbis did back then, he quotes the first line of Psalm 22 to bring that Psalm to the mind of those watching. That psalm depicts aspects of Jesus' death and also would speak to His disciples of trusting in God, in spite of the circumstances, and telling people what God has done. Jesus could be saying that in spite of it looking like God has abandoned Him, don't believe it because God has not.

Disease is a metaphor of sin in this case.

Matthew 5

14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again [after healing the paralytic man]. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.� 15 The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well.

It's not a metaphor. Jesus actually did both things. In Matthew 5:14-15 Jesus heals him and calls him to repentance warning him of a worse fate if he doesn't. Matthew 8:17 is talking directly about healing them and not about the cross. But, of course, I agree that Jesus bears our sins on the cross, too. It's just not talked about in the context of Matthew 8:17, so I don't think we should add it in there.

In this verse Matthew draws on Isaiah 53 (just like 1 Peter 2:22-24 does). He compares Isaiah's remark of "He himself bore our sickness..." as Jesus healing people of actual sicknesses and demon-possession, not just of sin. And if that is how Jesus "bore our physical sicknesses" why not also interpret Jesus' "bearing our sins" as taking away our sins rather than of "being full of sin"? Jesus didn't actually get sick or demon-possessed when healing people of their sicknesses and demon possession.

What happens when one is full of sin? They are separated from God. Do you agree?

Jesus is not in eternal torment because He conquered sin and rose from the dead!

Yes, I agree. We are separated from God. You are saying that I must believe Jesus was annihilated. But Jesus was not annihilated because He conquered sin and rose from the dead! The same language you just used, so why do you think this works against annihilationism, but not eternal torment.

I don't believe it is an "i-told-you-so" scenerio in either view. You are making that claim, not me.

Okay, I misunderstood you in post 103. I'm sorry for my confusion there.

It says "for eternity". That's constantly kindling.

I believe you used the HCSB translation when you quoted Isaiah 30:33. I'm missing the use of "eternity" here:

"Indeed! Topheth has been ready
for the king for a long time now.
Its funeral pyre is deep and wide,
with plenty of fire and wood.
The breath of the Lord, like a torrent of brimstone,
kindles it."

Did you use a different translation?

No. The example of cutting the hand off is a metaphor. One's physical body doesn't get tossed into hell. The corpse is not going to resurrect. Some of them get cremated. We know that those who will have eternal life will have glorified bodies, so we must ask the question: what form on judgement day will the condemned have. I think it is difficult to ponder because we think of time as linear. The truth is, we just don't know.

In my understanding Judaism and most Christians believe the Bible teaches a bodily resurrection. But we've probably have enough to talk about already without going down that road.

Tell me, does it scare you that there is such a thing as eternal torment?

No, it doesn't. I don't disbelieve it because of emotional reasons.

There is a timeline and that is the gnashing of teeth and being cast into hell.

Matthew 13:

They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It does not say there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth and then hell fire.

It doesn't say there is hell fire and then weeping and gnashing of teeth either. It's simultaneous in this passage. The blazing furnace (whatever fate that is) involves weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then then comes in in verse 43. After hell, the righteous will shine like the sun.

You did answer it but you disregarded my explanation.

Here is my explanation:

If we are going to refer to "age" as meaning a limited time span, then we need to apply this to God also.

Oh, I understood something different using the word 'disregarded.' I certainly disagreed. The reason I disagreed it doesn't also apply to God is that we have other verses not based only on the word aion that speak to it, which we don't have with Hell being eternal in the sense you use it. You have provided scriptures you think does this with Hell as well, but we disagree on the proper interpretation of those verses, for sure. But, again, I thank you for sharing your views and challenging me to think deeper on mine and look at more passages from Scripture.

[brianbbs67]

While we argue scripture , we should remind ourselves that all or nothing could happen to us. We don''t know. Unless, God has said it to us. Believe this, believe that. But believe God. We are honing our spiritual spheres for sure. but that is all.

[William]

The implications are still there. The point being that no matter how long the 'moment' the result is the same and the presumption therein is that once the blinders are off, there will be those who continue to be stubborn and self centered and deserving of annihilation...it is a rather juvenile idea in which all participating don't seem to learn anything useful. There is no sign of any real growth.

Why must there be sign of real growth?

Because growth is the nature of learning, developing, setting aside juvenile concepts and accompanying behaviors, etc.
This based upon my own understanding that we - as consciousness - GOD consciousness - in form, having an experience in this universe, cannot be annihilated in some other reality (afterlife) and our experience in this current universe (and perhaps even prior to this) has acted like a veil over our awareness as to our true nature, in this regard.

Annihilation of the veil, sure. Annihilation of GOD- consciousness is impossible. By 'GOD consciousness' I am not referring to being conscious of some idea or another of GOD, but along the lines of the analogy of Genesis where the GOD breathes [His] life into the form. We are literally GOD in the form of human beings.

When I think about the amazing amount of time and effort and procedure gone into this creation and the gift of individuate experience - and in terms of timeline...our blink-of-an-eye-experience-in-comparison-to-the-universes-existence...only to be judged somehow unworthy and then individually annihilated, makes little to no sense to me.

Which is why I investigated other sources in relation to afterlife ideas (already mentioned by me in this thread) and from that developed the more reasonable, sensible understanding that experiences with beginnings and endings are akin to development and learning processes.

Sure. The problem with what to do with reprobate individual personalities who are purposefully none compliant and go out of their way to harm rather than help...from human perspective, the death penalty is an answer as to how to remove the harm... or locking them away might remove the harm they can do to the general population, but ultimately this is a quick fix band aid on a deep wound 'solution' which is not really a solution at all. This type of thinking though has found its way into some of the organised religions doctrines and simply supports the juvenile approach to the problem with the aforementioned quick fix 'solution'.
Indeed, in terms of law, the religious idea of GOD and punishment have found there way into the dictates of human society and the solutions are no more or less than sweeping things under the carpet, which essentially is the 'solution' hell and damnation
also metaphorically provide.
Eternal damnation is no solution any more than annihilation is. However, the reprobate have to be contained somehow, which is why I think this is a far better idea that ...well I give a brief summery of this here;

♦ My thoughts on death.


It is all about self responsibility in relation to self identity. If our identity of SELF is less than what we truly are, then we will only ever reach for that lesser standard and once there, believe that we have attained our highest outcome.

For example. If we believe that we are 'stardust' then there is no particular impulse to become anything more than that.
If we believe we are separate from GOD and in need of reconnecting, but our idea of GOD is inaccurate, we will only reach for that.
If we believe that we are aspects of GOD-consciousness and any separation from GOD is just illusion, we will reach for that - by systematically removing anything which is involved in maintaining that illusion.

Therein is real growth.

[The Tanager]

I won't respond to your points about God consciousness because I would only ask why you think that and you've already provided links for when I have the time to look into that.

So, to sum up the context I'm bringing when I respond to your post, to make sure we are on the same page: You critiqued my view of a 'moment' after resurrection, the final judgment and then the unrepentant are annihilated. You seemed to be saying the flaw is that people don't learn anything useful in this 'moment'. That there needs to be real growth in this moment to be from God. I asked why you think this is the case.

Because growth is the nature of learning, developing, setting aside juvenile concepts and accompanying behaviors, etc.

People had their chances for that. The unrepentant remained self-centered and 'juvenile'.

When I think about the amazing amount of time and effort and procedure gone into this creation and the gift of individuate experience - and in terms of timeline...our blink-of-an-eye-experience-in-comparison-to-the-universes-existence...only to be judged somehow unworthy and then individually annihilated, makes little to no sense to me.

Our blink of an eye is a blink in the time the universe has seemingly existed, but it's still plenty of time to turn to God or in upon ourselves.

For example. If we believe that we are 'stardust' then there is no particular impulse to become anything more than that.
If we believe we are separate from GOD and in need of reconnecting, but our idea of GOD is inaccurate, we will only reach for that.
If we believe that we are aspects of GOD-consciousness and any separation from GOD is just illusion, we will reach for that - by systematically removing anything which is involved in maintaining that illusion.

Sure, but it's a matter of truth, not our opinions. I'll look at your link soon and see if I have any thoughts on that to share.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 103 by Claire Evans]


"We know that being full of sin condemns one to hell. Jesus was full of sin yet He didn't face annihilation. He was fully aware of the horrors of hell. "

If Jesus was full of sin I'd like a quote so to read it for myself.

1 Peter 2:24

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."

Matthew 8:17

This was to fulfill what was spoken through Isaiah the prophet: "HE HIMSELF TOOK OUR INFIRMITIES AND CARRIED AWAY OUR DISEASES."

'He bore our sins'

Bore the burden - definition of bore the burden by The Free Dictionary
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bore+the+burden
To carry on one's person from one place to another: bore the suitcase to the ... beran to carry, Latin ferre, Greek pherein to bear, Sanskrit bharati he carries] ...

'He took our infirmities and carried away our diseases'

As above, so different from - 'full of sin' insinuating his sin.

A further definition from your link:

b. To be accountable for; assume

How was Jesus accountable for our sin? It is saying He was guilty of it on our behalf. If we have sin we don't repent for, we are full of that sin. That is why people aren't sensitive to the Holy Spirit because they are far away from Him and let Satan in instead.

So how do you think Jesus bore our sins? What happened?

[brianbbs67]

I would think of it this way. I sacrificed for my children and wife. If they don't accept my sacrificed and chose differently. That's on them. Doesn't mean I didn't sacrifice for them specifically.

[Claire Evans]

Yes, it is! Anything is better than spending an eternity with God!

From their perspective, but not from the perspective of truth.

Then it's happy days for them. Annihilation is awesome to the evil. No accountability.

But let's follow your line of thought here in regards to eternal torment. Anything is better than eternity with God to them. So, eternal torment is in the same boat as annihilation with your reasoning.

No, it's not in the same boat because annihilation is what they want. That's better than eternity with God. Eternal torment in hell is not what they want but eternal life with God is something that is not even possible for them. No one with sin can ever be near God.

They don't want to go to hell because there is no suffering to feed off. That is Satan's biggest fear.

Because in order for us to be saved, Jesus had to be guilty of all the sin ever committed by taking on all the sin. It was like He had committed every sin.

All you have done here is restate your belief; I'm asking why you believe that. Why did Jesus have to be guilty of all the sin ever committed? Why doesn't bearing our sins in 1 Peter 2:24 and Isaiah 53 simply mean taking them away, of cleansing us of them? We have now died to them and can live for righteousness. We have been healed by the cross.

How did Jesus take away the sin of the world? Couldn't He have done that without dying for us? If God could not have forgiven sin, then Jesus would never have resurrected as He would have been dead to sin forever. He could not have been forgiven as Jesus took on the sin of the world.

When one dies for someone else, they experience death in place of another so that this other person can be spared the same fate. Likewise, Jesus took on our sin and took on the punishment of hell so that we wouldn't have to if we repented for our sins.

The more one sins, the more one is distant to God. That is why Jesus asked why the Father had forsaken Him.

That's one possible interpretation of Matt 27:24/Mark 15:34. Another is that, like rabbis did back then, he quotes the first line of Psalm 22 to bring that Psalm to the mind of those watching. That psalm depicts aspects of Jesus' death and also would speak to His disciples of trusting in God, in spite of the circumstances, and telling people what God has done. Jesus could be saying that in spite of it looking like God has abandoned Him, don't believe it because God has not.

So you are saying Jesus was being deceptive? That He didn't actually mean it when He asked why the Father had forsaken Him; rather just saying it to fulfill prophecy?Do you really think He was in the state of mind to think of Psalm 22?

Disease is a metaphor of sin in this case.

Matthew 5

14 Later Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “See, you are well again [after healing the paralytic man]. Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.� 15 The man went away and told the Jewish leaders that it was Jesus who had made him well.

It's not a metaphor. Jesus actually did both things. In Matthew 5:14-15 Jesus heals him and calls him to repentance warning him of a worse fate if he doesn't .

Yes, but the disease was being associated with sin in this instance.

"Sin no more.—These words connect his past sufferings with individual sin. He has been freed from the effects, but if they have been truly remedial he has been freed from the cause too. He is in God’s house. Let him accept restored powers as God’s gift, and let their devotion be the true thank-offering. The imperative is present, and points to a permanent condition of life—“Be not any more a sinner.�

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/5-14.htm

Perhaps the sin resulted in his lameness:

"Sin no more - By this expression it was implied that the infirmity of this man was caused by sin - perhaps by vice in his youth. His crime or dissipation had brought on him this long and distressing affliction. Jesus shows him that he knew the cause of his sickness, and takes occasion to warn him not to repeat it. No man who indulges in vice can tell what may be its consequences. It must always end in evil, and not unfrequently it results in loss of health, and in long and painful disease. This is always the case with intemperance and all gross pleasures. Sooner or later, sin will always result in misery."

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/john/5-14.html

When Isaiah said, "...and carried away our diseases", it is representing Jesus as cleansing our sins. Back in the day, Jews believed that disease was the result of sin:


Deuteronomy 28:58-60

58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— 59 the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you.

What happens when one is full of sin? They are separated from God. Do you agree?

Jesus is not in eternal torment because He conquered sin and rose from the dead!

Yes, I agree. We are separated from God. You are saying that I must believe Jesus was annihilated. But Jesus was not annihilated because He conquered sin and rose from the dead! The same language you just used, so why do you think this works against annihilationism, but not eternal torment.

You said hell is annihilation so where do you think Jesus was during those days we was dead, taking on the sin of the world?

It says "for eternity". That's constantly kindling.

I believe you used the HCSB translation when you quoted Isaiah 30:33. I'm missing the use of "eternity" here:

"Indeed! Topheth has been ready
for the king for a long time now.
Its funeral pyre is deep and wide,
with plenty of fire and wood.
The breath of the Lord, like a torrent of brimstone,
kindles it."

Did you use a different translation?

You are right. I looked at the Hebrew translation and "eternity" is not there.

There is a timeline and that is the gnashing of teeth and being cast into hell.

Matthew 13:

They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

It does not say there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth and then hell fire.

It doesn't say there is hell fire and then weeping and gnashing of teeth either. It's simultaneous in this passage. The blazing furnace (whatever fate that is) involves weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then then comes in in verse 43. After hell, the righteous will shine like the sun.

But you can't be annihilated and gnash your teeth at the same time. It says in the blazing furnace there will be gnashing of teeth implying eternity.

You did answer it but you disregarded my explanation.

Here is my explanation:

If we are going to refer to "age" as meaning a limited time span, then we need to apply this to God also.

Oh, I understood something different using the word 'disregarded.' I certainly disagreed. The reason I disagreed it doesn't also apply to God is that we have other verses not based only on the word aion that speak to it, which we don't have with Hell being eternal in the sense you use it. You have provided scriptures you think does this with Hell as well, but we disagree on the proper interpretation of those verses, for sure. But, again, I thank you for sharing your views and challenging me to think deeper on mine and look at more passages from Scripture.

Okay, thanks.

[ttruscott]

So you are saying Jesus was being deceptive? That He didn't actually mean it when He asked why the Father had forsaken Him; rather just saying it to fulfill prophecy?Do you really think He was in the state of mind to think of Psalm 22? .

Of course! It was why He was there!!

He was not asking why because He knew the truth that He was not forsaken....He was applying the triumphant last verses to himself by quoting the first line of the psalm, a method used to refer to the whole psalm.