I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

My interpretation is not wrong. Did it ever occur to you that the omniscient Almighty Lord of Creation was not confined to the Book of Jude to interpret and understand the very words that he was speaking??
I ask again: Was Christ lying when he used the words:

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Are you prepared to say that he didn't mean what he said, or that somehow he had to rely on his foreknowledge of the Book of Jude that would not be written until another 40 years. Even if that was the case, your interpretation of that book is clearly wrong. But that isn't the case. Everlasting fire does not mean temporal, and there was no present in that audience that would have understood it that way.

Burned but not anihilated. Why do you read into Scripture that which is not there. Have you not read of the "burning bush" in Moses time--it burned, but was not annihilated.

You like to redefine words according to your own theology.
Must every word mean annihilate, when it doesn't even say annihilate?
It says destroyed, not ahhihilate. A person's life can be destroyed spiritually, but the person still lives. Death is separation. Eternal life is being in the presence of God for all eternity. Eternal death is being separated from God for all eternity. It is eternal destruction; eternal separation from God; not annihilation. Many things are destroyed without being annihilated. You need to think things through before you post them. My computer will be "destroyed" if you spill a cup of coffee on the key board, but the computer will not be "annihilated," will it? Destruction does not mean ahhihilation as the SDA's wrongly teach.

Who is the one proof-texting? You refuse to define words according to the context that they are given in, but would rather pull other words out of context to build a cultish doctrine. Peter says this about doing such things:

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--You have not only taken this Scripture, but others, and have wrested them out of their context unto your own destruction. So it seems.

The only point I got from the previous exchange is that you are unwilling to change them no matter what the evidence is that is presented to you.

What does Jude say that would contadict what Jesus says? Absolutely nothing! I am perfectly willing to debate any passage in Jude with you. You have been doing that with another poster, not me. The Book of Jude and the words of Christ do not contradict each other. Eternal means eternal, and eternal punishment the same.

Only according to you. You pervert words according to your own pre-conceived theology. Destruction does not mean annihilation. The disciples never belonged to the SDA cult.

You have blatantly ignored the clear teaching of Scripture again and again, and refuse to accept the meaning of words when they are so obviously defined by the Bible itself. Words have meanings. Why do you try to change them? Is Christ lying when he says "everlasting fire?" What do you think his audience understood by those words when he spoke them?

 

DHK:

".. . . prepared for the devil and his angels: --Eternl and everlasting mean the same thing--forever and ever, without end;"

GE:

Is it also true of its past? Has the hell existed from everlasting? I should say no; then what's the fuss about its end?
John writes of the new earth and new heaven wherein dwells no evil. Hell is evil. Hell won't go on for ever unless place has been provided for it in the new earth and new heaven.

Nontheless I find it impossible to reconcile the idea of borderless disobedience and sin with a limited punishment; much more impossible to reconcile the concept of a limited punishment for the boundless love of a Saviour God spurned.

Hell is for God to understand; not for us to be dogmatic about.

 

The fact that Christ taught on hell and warned about it, shows we must be dogmatic about it. If we are not telling others of the eternality and the torments of hell, what need have they to be saved?

There is no fear of result of sin if we are not dogmatic in what the Word tells us sin leads to.

 

In the book of Jude the Almight Lord of Creation tells US that WE should look at the perfect eXAMLE of what it means to be DESTROYED by eternal fire. HE is the one that tells US to look at Sodom as the perfect example.

Your need to run away from what HE is saying there is well understood sir.

And yet your argument fails on the same basis that it has so many times in the past as you tried to get us to view doctrine in an isolated manner while fleeing some text (in some cases the entire O.T) so that it can still be spun to meet the needs of your bias. The problem is that ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration from God -- ALL of it must be read -- not just tiny sections that are suited to the bending and twisting you might choose to make of it.

In this case BOTH Matt 10 AND Jude point to the complete and total destruction that results from the punishment of "eternal fire" just when you would have us look at Matt 25 WITHOUT noticing the Matt 10 context leading into it or the fact that they all fit perfectly with the destruction of eternal fire seen in Jude - IF we do not take "your spin".

Nope - he was being perfectly consistent with the MAtt 10 statement he had ALREADY made about the Complete and utter destruction of eternal fire AND the one HE makes in Jude about the CITIES of Sodom and Gomorrah also being perfect examples of that same destruction "by eternal fire" --

Indeed that is the SAME WORD used in Jude showing the literal example "EXHIBITED FOR US" to this very day as shining example of the complete Matt 10 DESTRUCTION caused by "everlasting fire" (same word rendered "eternal fire")

Nope. I am prepared to say that he did not mean what YOU needed him to say.

Rather he meant what HE ALREADY identified in Matt 10:28 speaking of the DESTRUCTION caused by eternal fire. AND what He would CONTINUE to mean as HE spoke of everlasting fire in Jude causing the complete and total DESTRUCTION of Sodom and Gomorrah!

See DHK! When you keep asking that the glaring flaw in your argument be exposed time after time after time -- I am more than happy to comply.

Shall we do this again sir? Fine - then until next time.

In Christ,

Bob

 

As much as you would enjoy twisting everlasting fire mentioned in Jude into something other than what was ALREADY identified by Christ in Matt 10 as that which causes the complete DESTRUCTION of both body and soul in fiery hell- which is in fact the SAME everlasting fire mentioned in Matt 25 -- your bending and twisting of scripture can not be done.

The fact that you are so quick to admit that Jude completely knocks your interpretation flat back on its heels is of course "instructive". We all know that Jude is not a CHANGE to the DESTRUCTION we see in Matt 10 -- it is a CONSISTENT and CONTINUED use of the same idea -- and Matt 25 is the SAME reference to the SAME "everlasting fire" as we see in Jude sir.

As much as you want to ignore the full teaching of scripture on this topic - it remains to be read by all. And your argument seems to have died in infancy.

The burning bush in Moses' day was neither CONSUMED nor DESTROYED.

But by CONTRAST in Matt 10 we see that BOTH BODY AND SOUL are DESTROYED in fiery hell. In Jude we see the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah DESTROYED by "undergoing the PUNISHMENT of everlasting fire".

How much more CLEAR it would have been if God had said "the wicked are neither CONSUMED nor DESTROYED by everlasting fire just as the burning bush in Moses' day was not consumed or destroyed". IF God MEANT to use your idea of fire - He had the perfect example of something that does NOT CONSUME and does NOT DESTROY -- the very one YOU gave.

It is instructive that instead of an example that fits YOUR VIEW He gave one that fits BOTH Matt 10 AND Jude!!!

And of course - as always -- leave it to DHK to point out the glaring flaw in his own argument!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I keep using the word DESTROY - (time after time after time).

DHK and others quickly see that DESTROY and annihilate are synonyms so they quickly rush to arguments about annihilate though I never use the term!!

How instructive.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sodom was DESTROYED by undergoing the PUNISHMENT of everlasting fire. We do NOT see a thriving city of Sodom today that simply had "coffee spilled on it" sir.

God GAVE the illustration for what DESTROY means in the context of everlasting fire and HE SAID it was the DESTROYED cities of Sodom and Gomorrah!! I appreciate your need to spin this around and imagine a keyboard with coffee spilled on it INSTEAD of the utterly DESTROYED cities God tells us to look at for the perfect example of what HE means by the punishment of everlasting fire.

In fact - I think we can all appreciate your need to spin like that when making this most unbiblical argument for "destroy does not mean destroy" it just means "coffee spilled on a keyboard".

Your example of Moses and the burning bush was the perfect illustration for fire that neither consumes nor destroys. Stick with it - it is the perfect contradiction of Jude and Matt 10 and Matt 25.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Finally - you have spoken at least one thing on this topic that is actually true.

I was hoping you would eventually find your way back to a piece of solid biblically sound ground. It is good to have you back -- even if it was only for a microsecond.

I strongly recommed that you consider sticking with God's Word over your man-made traditions - then you won't have to continually expose the glaing flaws in your own arguments.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Greek word for 'destroy' in Matthew 10:28:

apoollumi apollumi ap-ol'-loo-mee
from 575 and the base of 3639; to destroy fully (reflexively, to perish, or lose), literally or figuratively:--destroy, die, lose, mar, perish.

Destroy (apollumi) does not mean total annihilation in light of other verses that speak of life in hell (the worm that dieth not). When one rightly divides the Word of truth and lets Scripture interpret Scripture, one clearly can see that the person who is thrown in hell (such as the rich man in Luke 16), is not utterly consumed, but there is everlasting (never-ending) torment.

 

#1. Worms do not live in hell
#2. The symbol of the worm represents the destroy FIRE not the PERSON.
#3. continually SWITCHING between the TEXT talking about that which DESTROYS and the man-made tradition regarding that which GET's burned is how you get LIFE IN a worm being LIFE in the FOOD for the worm INSTEAD of the worm. The worm is the symbol of the fIre not the wicked!

Each time you confuse the two - you get garbled doctrine.

The DESTRUCTION mentioned as the result of eternal fire - everlasting fire is the destruction that "REDUCES TO ASHES" according to God's Word.

In Jude When God talks to us about the SAME "Everlasting fire" of Matt 25 -- He tells us that he is talking about DESTROY as in "reduce to ashes".

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

 

You guys have done so much twisting and turning on this subject to prop up the classic man-made tradition on this topic - it was only a matter of time before your positions so directly contradicted scripture that simply "the quote of scripture alone" would suffice to totally debunk the arguments you have raised.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

 

BobRyan,
Since you deny the very words of the Lord Jesus Christ who said that worms live in hell, you must deny Him in other truths He speaks.

I see no further need to cast pearls of truth and wisdom before one who so blatantly treads upon them as mire.

I am surprised DHK has allowed you to dialogue with the false doctrines that you teach for as long as he has.

 

If hell reduces the person thrown therein to ashes and he no longer feels the torments of hell, there would be no reason for hell to deliver them back up to be judged and thrown into the lake of fire.

The person thrown into hell is not turned to ashes as you surmise. He experiences the flames for all eternity with no relief at all.

 

There is so much bible material in direct contradiction to the man-made tradition so popular on this topic today -- I could go on this all day long!

Ezek 28:13-19 – Satan will “be no more” reduced to ashes

[quote]Ezek 28 <Speaking of Satan>
18
"By the multitude of your iniquities,
In the unrighteousness of your trade
You profaned your sanctuaries.
Therefore I have brought fire from the midst of you;
[b] It has consumed you, [/B]
And I have turned you to ashes on the earth
In the eyes of all who see you.
19
"All who know you among the peoples
Are appalled at you;
You have become terrified
And you will cease to be forever."'"
[/quote]

How great the contrast between Satan’s “beginning” and his “end” –

 

Fiery hell is the the one that "destroys both body and soul" -- it is not the HADES and SHEOL of Rev 20... Your reference to Rev 20 is to HADES not fiery hell.

The Fire and Brimstone judgment of Rev 20 is the same one we see in Rev 14:10 tormenting the wicked where the smoke of their torment ascends up forever and ever - that is NOT sheol -- it is not HADES.

You are mixing things up again.

In Christ,

Bob

 

DHK whines that I dared to take this "worm symbol" as being literal -when I clearly have admitted that this is merely a symbol used because Ghenna was the garbage dump symbol Christ chose to use as the example of fiery hell.

Then YOU spin around and whine that if I do NOT take that symbol literally I am denying Christ.

Come on guys--make up your minds!!

I can't believe the false-piety you are so willing to dish out when your argument fails as it is confronted with scripture!! Come back to Scripture sir. Return to a faithful reading of God's Word. Leave off that man-made tradition that is so contradicted by God's Word!

You both have climbed soooo far out on that limb that now the clear quotes of "eternal fire" and "destroy" and "reduced to ashes" seen in scripture simply slice off that limb in such a blatant and obvious way that even the most CASUAL reader can see it. Why do you choose that path?

In Christ,

Bob

 

You're a classic Bob. You are unable to deal with the context of Scripture. Let us look at it again. And again I will ask you to deal with the context of the Olivet Discourse (Mat. 24 & 25), which BTW, is spoken within a week before his crucifixion. If you look in Mat.10, you will see that he has just called his disciples together, the names of which are listed at the beginning of the chapter. Now, almost three and a half years later you are expecting his disciples to recall one verse that he mentioned to them at the beginning of his ministry. They were "slow of learning," if you recall correctly. Over and over again he had told them that he would die and rise again, but they did not understand. Yet you expect them to have this photographic memory and remember one verse spoken to them over three years ago just to prove your case. Keep ini mind they had never heard the not yet written book of Jude.
Why are you afraid to deal with context, Bob?

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Why do you insist that everlasting could have any other meaning than everlasting or eternal, when the Greek says otherwise. Jesus was not speaking in parables here. He was not referring to something he said three years back. You are deliberatley perverting the Word of God.

 

Ok for the tenth time -- this time S--L--O--W--L--Y

Let's look at everlasting - "eternal" fire as the Greek text is rendered in scripture.

Jude
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting KJV) fire.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;


#1. In you quote above you make it appear that these are NOT good examples of Everlasting fire and that God is just plain wrong to use them as perfect examples of the destruction by everlasting fire.

Obviously this is where your man-made traditions are taking you but just as obvious to any reader is the clear glaring conclusion that you are dead wrong on contradicting scripture in that way.

#2. It is clear that the eternal destruction of those cities is in fact eternal. They are never coming back.

#3. the word in Greek refers to the kind of fire - not the kind of FUEL!!

God is the source of the fire - GOD IS a CONSUMING fire! He is also eternal.

Heb 12
27 This expression, ""Yet once more,'' denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.
28 Therefore, since [b]we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken,[/b] let us show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe;
29 for our God is a consuming fire.[/b]

Heb 12:29
for our God is a consumingfire.
kaigaroqeovhmwnpurkatanaliskon.(5723)
Katanalisko

• to consume
  • of fire

KJV (1) - consume, 1;
NAS (1) - consuming, 1;


Rev 20:9 NKJV
9They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. Andfire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

Rev 20:9
And they came up on the broadplain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the belovedcity, and firecamedown from heaven and devoured them.


Katesthio

• to consume by eating, to eat up, devour
  • of birds
  • of a dragon
  • of a man eating up the little book
• metaph.
  • to devour i.e. squander, waste: substance
  • to devour i.e. forcibly appropriate: widows' property
  • to strip one of his goods
    • to ruin (by the infliction of injuries)
  • by fire, to devour i.e. to utterly consume, destroy
  • of the consumption of the strength of body and mind by strong emotions

KJV (15) - devour, 10; devour up, 2; eat up, 3;
NAS (15) - ate, 4; consume, 1; devour, 5; devoured, 2; devours, 2; eat, 1;

 

That is the most convoluted wrenched dancing on behalf of pure eisegesis I have EVER seen on this board!!

You argue that we should IGNORE what God teaches in Jude about everlasting fire AND IGNORE what Christ told the disciples IN THE BOOK OF MATT - IN the chapters leading UP to chapter 25 when discussing the DESTRUCTION to be caused in fiery hell... and JUST take the snippet in Matt 25 AS IF the rest of MATT did not EXIST!!!

Your argument for IGNORING the context of the book leading into chapter 25 is that "this is CONTEXT" to IGNORE the context of the teaching of Christ that Matt SHOWS IN HIS OWN BOOK as we come to Matt 25!!!

DHK - the extremes of Bible eisegesis to which you will go in defense of man-made tradition is beyond reason sir.

I have never seen so blatant an argument for eisegesis from JW's or Mormons OR Roman Catholics on this board. That anyone should argue in favor of IGNORING the context IN THE SAME book LEADING into the chapter in question -- is beyond EVEN those groups!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

You answer shows that you refuse to look at the immediate text in which Jesus said these words. You refuse to look at who Jesus was speaking with, when he was speaking, why he was speaking--in conclusion--the entire context of the passage in question. You have ignored the context and have taken it out of its context and made it a pretext for your own perverted doctrine.

Again! How would the hearers of Jesus message to take his words "everlasting fire" if it wasn't everlasting? Did they have some kind of code to go by that everlasting did not mean eternal or everlasting? Did Jesus signal them when he was about to change the meaning of his words to fit SDA theology? How did it all work Bob? When did the listeners know that everlasting changed its meaning from anything else but everlasting? Stick to the context. Can you do that for me?

See what it means here: (Strong's)

I would hope that you would get the idea what the word means from the Greek. It is fairly obvious here, isn't it? Perpetual, eternal, forever, everlasting. Are you in denial Bob? Keep this in the context of the Olivet Discourse (Mat.25). What would the listeners have thought when they heard the expression "everlasting fire?" There can be no other conclusion! Everlasting only has one meaning--eternal or forever. Why must I belabor this point?

Matthew 25:41 Then shall he say also to those on the left, Go from me, cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: (Darby)