You mean the Cloud by day and pillar of fire by night that was "with Israel"?
Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?
- Thread starter Timotheos
- Start date
You mean the Cloud by day and pillar of fire by night that was "with Israel"?
The very fact that you said this is appealing to my nature to appreciate what you are saying. You are an enigma CherubRam! I think your posts surprise me and come unexpected. Just when I think I understand your perspective... you go and move forward in expression like this.
Perhaps I will reconsider my view of your input.
I do believe I'm going to give your excellent "Hades" post a like. except... I think it's context intended by you is a little off. I believe that there is an important intersection of greek and Christian understanding that was orchestrated for the growth of the gospel. It makes it easier to connect semblances of known understanding with new learning... when witnessing.
I would suggest that God did exactly that. Infact... I just did.
- EE
Last edited:
Actually... I would say that the Greek understanding must be known to understand scripture.
Consider the use of a 7 headed hydra in Revelation.
- EE
Rosenritter
New member
Quickly:
1. Yes, Samaria and Judah are places, and peoples. Judah is both a place and a people. What's your point? You still didn't show where this rule of "proper names" is written, so you just evaded. Your point depends on this "proper name" rule being accepted, so if you evade, your point fails.
2. Again, you evaded. Plenty of parable without the so-called parable introduction. Unless you are willing to declare all of those not parables as well, your measure fails.
3. Please, pray tell, how does 4 Maccabees 13:17 preach "Abraham's bosom?" You were criticizing use of non-canonized books before, and this didn't even make the King James with Apocrypha edition... but that aside, in the resurrection of the dead Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob might indeed welcome many, so unless your belief excludes the resurrection of the dead, your counter-point fails. Do you have Abraham's bosom defind in scripture? No. Mentioned (as mythological belief) in Josephus perhaps. Not scripture.
4. Your counter-point failed to counter. You stated that parables need to have specifically stated applications. Plenty of parables that don't have specifically stated explanations, Lon. Try not to substitute sarcastic quips if you lack an answer.
5. Out of the parables that Jesus didn't specifically explain, this one is fairly well explained if you would avail yourself of the built-in legend (symbol explanation) that's already in the canon. Dogs, Father Abraham, purple and fine linen, five brothers! There are others not so well explained. Your argument that "the absence of specific explanation proves it has no explanation" doesn't hold water.
6. Regardless of whom Jesus specifically addresses, the measure of "he spoke not to the multitude without parable" depends on the presence of the multitude - can they hear him? It does say he (sometimes) spoke to his disciples plainly, but unless you are willing to call the multitude of PHARISEES his disciples, your point fails, Lon. Are the Pharisees (whom he addressed with the story of Lazarus) his disciples? Yes or no, Lon. Your answers have done far too much dodging.
7. The Hades that Jesus uses in Luke 16 does not match the hades in the rest of the New Testament. As such that Hades isn't an actual place, but it's a well recognized construct. The hades Jesus talks of elsewhere doesn't have fire (or torment.) Not sure what that point was supposed to score Lon...
8. Luke 16:19-31 does fit parable patterns and possesses a hell of a lot of analogy. Moses and the prophets name the rich man. The same meaning and analogy is confirmed in other parables of Christ. Your point fails miserably here Lon. Ignorance of the meaning does not nullify meaning.
9. Lon, Hades, hades, and gehenna are different: Hades is mythological, hades and sheol is the grave, and gehenna will be the final grave to end all graves. Where do you see written that the lake of fire currently exists? It doesn't appear until Revelation.... after Christ returns to earth.
10. Hercules went to Hades. For those who don't watch the sci-fi channel, but listen to the Greek poets instead, there's Orpheus. This isn't about personal experience, it's about being familiar with the setting. Hades is already described by the pagan poets. A description, I might add, that doesn't mesh at all with the Jewish prophets of scripture, inspired prophets I might add who spoke of the death, hell as nothingness, and also Christ's return and the resurrection.
11. Lon, it seems you're the one who likes to argue.... don't be ignorant please. A simple search would confirm what I just told you. Moses and the prophets means their writings.
Luke 24:27 KJV And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Same gospel, I might add.
12) It would not be unconscionable for Jesus to relate a story in a fictional setting with fictional places that by themselves have no more weight than mythology, such as Hades and Abraham's Bosom. Homer, Plato, and Josephus are not canonical.
13) Lon, do you want to engage in an Old Testament only match on determining the state and experience of the dead? You know as well as I do that is not a favorable element for ECT and Soul Ghost theology.
14) firstly, your attempted point is inane and shows a lack of understanding of fair logic. Only some parables begin with "And he told this parable unto them" and the parable status of the other parables are not ever questioned. It is common knowledge that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable.
Rich man and Lazarus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the parable from Gospel of Luke. For the man Jesus raised from the dead, see Lazarus of Bethany. For the ballad, see Dives and Lazarus (ballad). For other uses of the name, see Lazarus (name).
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (also called the Dives and Lazarus or Lazarus and Dives) is a well-known parable of Jesus appearing in the Gospel of Luke.
15) "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" proves the resurrection. Any attempt to assume that the dead are alive denies the resurrection and would destroy Jesus's stated point of intent to his audience.
Not that it was its intended purpose, but that very passage (three-fold repeated in the gospels) destroys the very position you are trying to establish.
You haven't yet answered that, either with my summation of the question or that of William Tyndale. You want to coach Tyndale that he is an unqualified young pup that is ignorant of the scriptures? Now's your chance Lon...
1. Yes, Samaria and Judah are places, and peoples. Judah is both a place and a people. What's your point? You still didn't show where this rule of "proper names" is written, so you just evaded. Your point depends on this "proper name" rule being accepted, so if you evade, your point fails.
2. Again, you evaded. Plenty of parable without the so-called parable introduction. Unless you are willing to declare all of those not parables as well, your measure fails.
3. Please, pray tell, how does 4 Maccabees 13:17 preach "Abraham's bosom?" You were criticizing use of non-canonized books before, and this didn't even make the King James with Apocrypha edition... but that aside, in the resurrection of the dead Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob might indeed welcome many, so unless your belief excludes the resurrection of the dead, your counter-point fails. Do you have Abraham's bosom defind in scripture? No. Mentioned (as mythological belief) in Josephus perhaps. Not scripture.
4. Your counter-point failed to counter. You stated that parables need to have specifically stated applications. Plenty of parables that don't have specifically stated explanations, Lon. Try not to substitute sarcastic quips if you lack an answer.
5. Out of the parables that Jesus didn't specifically explain, this one is fairly well explained if you would avail yourself of the built-in legend (symbol explanation) that's already in the canon. Dogs, Father Abraham, purple and fine linen, five brothers! There are others not so well explained. Your argument that "the absence of specific explanation proves it has no explanation" doesn't hold water.
6. Regardless of whom Jesus specifically addresses, the measure of "he spoke not to the multitude without parable" depends on the presence of the multitude - can they hear him? It does say he (sometimes) spoke to his disciples plainly, but unless you are willing to call the multitude of PHARISEES his disciples, your point fails, Lon. Are the Pharisees (whom he addressed with the story of Lazarus) his disciples? Yes or no, Lon. Your answers have done far too much dodging.
7. The Hades that Jesus uses in Luke 16 does not match the hades in the rest of the New Testament. As such that Hades isn't an actual place, but it's a well recognized construct. The hades Jesus talks of elsewhere doesn't have fire (or torment.) Not sure what that point was supposed to score Lon...
8. Luke 16:19-31 does fit parable patterns and possesses a hell of a lot of analogy. Moses and the prophets name the rich man. The same meaning and analogy is confirmed in other parables of Christ. Your point fails miserably here Lon. Ignorance of the meaning does not nullify meaning.
9. Lon, Hades, hades, and gehenna are different: Hades is mythological, hades and sheol is the grave, and gehenna will be the final grave to end all graves. Where do you see written that the lake of fire currently exists? It doesn't appear until Revelation.... after Christ returns to earth.
10. Hercules went to Hades. For those who don't watch the sci-fi channel, but listen to the Greek poets instead, there's Orpheus. This isn't about personal experience, it's about being familiar with the setting. Hades is already described by the pagan poets. A description, I might add, that doesn't mesh at all with the Jewish prophets of scripture, inspired prophets I might add who spoke of the death, hell as nothingness, and also Christ's return and the resurrection.
11. Lon, it seems you're the one who likes to argue.... don't be ignorant please. A simple search would confirm what I just told you. Moses and the prophets means their writings.
Luke 24:27 KJV And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
Same gospel, I might add.
12) It would not be unconscionable for Jesus to relate a story in a fictional setting with fictional places that by themselves have no more weight than mythology, such as Hades and Abraham's Bosom. Homer, Plato, and Josephus are not canonical.
13) Lon, do you want to engage in an Old Testament only match on determining the state and experience of the dead? You know as well as I do that is not a favorable element for ECT and Soul Ghost theology.
14) firstly, your attempted point is inane and shows a lack of understanding of fair logic. Only some parables begin with "And he told this parable unto them" and the parable status of the other parables are not ever questioned. It is common knowledge that Lazarus and the rich man is a parable.
Rich man and Lazarus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the parable from Gospel of Luke. For the man Jesus raised from the dead, see Lazarus of Bethany. For the ballad, see Dives and Lazarus (ballad). For other uses of the name, see Lazarus (name).
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus (also called the Dives and Lazarus or Lazarus and Dives) is a well-known parable of Jesus appearing in the Gospel of Luke.
15) "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living" proves the resurrection. Any attempt to assume that the dead are alive denies the resurrection and would destroy Jesus's stated point of intent to his audience.
Not that it was its intended purpose, but that very passage (three-fold repeated in the gospels) destroys the very position you are trying to establish.
You haven't yet answered that, either with my summation of the question or that of William Tyndale. You want to coach Tyndale that he is an unqualified young pup that is ignorant of the scriptures? Now's your chance Lon...
Not necessarily. I realize it is a social problem, but I don't believe the scriptures are against them, as many seem to think. Paul, when appropriate, laid his credentials on the table and shut up his nay-sayers. "If you think you have something to brag about, I have more...."
Again, "you think you have credentials? I have more....." You can feign superiority, but I'm not buying it. I went to Multnomah, a sister seminary to Dallas TS. All my professors disagree with you, and strongly as well (both places). One of us is asserting, that is for sure. We can take your scriptures one at a time, but I'm telling you, flat out, you've made a LOT of reading comprehension mistakes in our conversation as well as some you've presented on your own.
:nono: This again is a rookie move. It is why I hold suspect your education, prowess as well as having spent any real time over this subject, honestly. Luke 16:1 is 'after' Luke 15:1Sorry. Luke 17:1 is the sandwich that closes your contest. I think there are some 'good' reasons for thinking Luke 16:19-31 a parable, but not this particular.
There are more, I just did a few that I remembered.
Samaria and Judah were places
You are thinking it is just me saying this. Did you look in all your bibles? Did you find even one (1) case of this being named a 'parable?' :think:
Not scripture, but history: 4 Maccabees 13:17 Look for what you haven't heard before?
Have any experience, coach? Ever coached before? The Lord Jesus Christ did not pull aside His disciples and explain this 'parable' to them. Put me in, coach (your language often seeks the condescension marks).
Ah, "doesn't seem" honest. :think: Do you ever read yourself? The Lord Jesus Christ did not explain every parable BUT not having done so here 'could' suggest it was because it isn't. :think:
:nono: You are that man. Read Luke 16:1 and Luke 17:1. Go ahead. Do it by hovering over both, right now.
"Who" does it 'say' He was talking to???? I grant some folks were there. Inconsequential. Rather "Who" was He talking to? What does Luke 16:1 and Luke 17:1 'say????' You are the man trying to explain stuff away, my friend. That man is you. What does it say? Answer truthfully, even if you don't type it here. It is clear enough. This one, was from me. You are welcome. -Lon
Simple: Hades is an actual place. Paradise was and 'actual' place. The Lord Jesus Christ, in conveying the story, 'describes' the places AND 'they actually exist' as given in the OT and NT.
You missed a point....back up. Parables are used to 1) Matthew 13:10-13 to convey truth only to those who understand. Luke 16:19-31 doesn't fit the parable pattern in that it is straightforward and without analogy. There is no metaphor or simile, but direct people with direct application. Parables do not 'explain' things to people that would help them understand what actual places would be like as happens here. This one did not come from me, but I understand why it is used. It is also another reason, among these and others, that your bibles do NOT call this "The Parable of the Rich Man."
You don't tend to listen, but listen up, teachable moment: Hades and Gehenna are two different places. Hades, in Revelation 20:14, is thrown into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna). Paradise isn't Heaven (and doesn't exist any more). Hades isn't the Lake of Fire (does exist, but will be thrown in).
"Experience" You know anybody, who has been in Hades? :jawdrop:
:doh: Do you like arguing just to argue? I've met teenagers like this, not many adults. You are being a simpleton. Even "Moses and the prophets" is talking about a 'real person and persons' who would have written the books. :doh: "Real" people. Do you understand?
It would be unconscionable, for the Lord Jesus Christ, to relate a story, about REAL places, and NOT portray them accurately.
ONLY in the sense that they no longer are aware, by their 5 senses, what is happening on the earth. Do you REALLY know what the OT said about the subject? :think: I rather believe, you have taught incorrectly. The view I laid out for you earlier in thread, is very consistent with OT and NT. Mark 12:27 He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
Genesis 5:24 2 Kings 2:11 Daniel 12:2 Isaiah 26:19 Psalm 16:10 :think:
...not done with these yet. You gave a hasty reply and were not able to topple a one of them. You can in your mind all you like. Did you READ your Bibles yet? Did you find even 1 (one) that said "The Parable of the Rich Ruler and Lazarus?" :think: Add that one to your growing list. # 14. -Lon
Rosenritter
New member
Hopefully we can agree that death includes the separation of body and spirit (or soul and spirit). I believe what we would need to establish is does any component of man survive death in a form that has life and/or conscious experience?
Rosenritter
New member
Any claim that Adam was dead on that day is merely speculation. In the last year plus Way 2 Go (or anyone else) has failed to provide any scriptural support for that assertion.
We do know that Adam died 930 years later. We are told that in black and white.
The misunderstanding is grammatical. God didn't say Adam would be dead that day, he did promise that Adam would be condemned to die that day. "Shall die" happened that day, not "die." If anyone is willing to look at this honestly, the same language is used by King Saul and King Solomon to describe events that they obviously knew wouldn't be fulfilled in twenty-four hours.
We do know that Adam died 930 years later. We are told that in black and white.
The misunderstanding is grammatical. God didn't say Adam would be dead that day, he did promise that Adam would be condemned to die that day. "Shall die" happened that day, not "die." If anyone is willing to look at this honestly, the same language is used by King Saul and King Solomon to describe events that they obviously knew wouldn't be fulfilled in twenty-four hours.
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
Rosenritter
New member
Lon, the specific quote you were objecting to also included "seems" ... Here, I dug it up for you, which caused the original offense:
Note there are multiple layers of indirection to protect sensitive souls. The action is spoken of, not the person; an inclusive we is used instead of an accusative you, to show that it could happen to anyone, and finally, it was modified by the spoken of "seems" which you requested.
The exact phrase is "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die".
I agree that blindness occurred at that moment... but God could still be heard by Adam. This is a critical point when discussing "spiritual death".
The "dead know nothing"... or in other words... "they have eyes to see, but cannot... ears to hear, but cannot" ... the very fact that Adam could "Hear" God ... makes the use of implicit "spiritual death" of Adam unacceptable in this point.
If I say... for in the day that person q contracts aids they will surely die... the phrase is still biblical. It binds to Gen. 3 and 5. In fact... it is Eve that adds to scripture when confronted by the serpent by saying...
"‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”"
When discussing a matter that the very "character" of God is involved in... it is wise to avoid placing points in scripture that don't bind to it in exact verbiage. I understand conveying spiritual death from the standpoint of understanding "twice dead". But... Jesus talks about "Soul Death".
Soul Death and Spiritual Death are two different matters, and because you and I understand that the "Breath"/Spirit that binds us to life... isn't actually "ours"... I can emphasize that "Spiritual Death" and "Soul Death" are two distinguishable matters.
- EE
If you go and deny that the very authors of the NT used Greek understandings as scripture was written, which shows that God willed so... you are missing much of the clear effort of God, through Paul to connect with the "Greeks" and "Romans".
I think this post is excellent, but if you discount it's place in this discussion as a valid way to navigate all scripture, you would be missing some paramount points that are clearly taught in scripture.
Consider that Hades had dominion of the realm of the dead of sorts. Thanatos factors in as well. Any false god system immediately connects to Satan. It is pretty amazing how God wrote the book of Ezekiel in such a way that these things come out. Do you understand what I am saying?
Consider... Heb. 2:14 I'm not saying "Paul" wrote Hebrews... but I am pointing out that this is a severely overlooked passage by all of Christondom.
Paul does refer to this... here...
1 Cor. 15:54f, 56
Rosenritter
New member
There is real death, and there is analogy to death. An analogy to death only has meaning if there is a real death that it is derived from. Most of what I hear some others hear of as "spiritual death" but I think it is more accurate to describe it as analogy.
If someone is "spiritually dead" there are not actually dead. You're speaking in a sense they are lack spiritual understanding to the degree of being in danger of the condemnation of death in judgment. But too often I see people playing fast and loose with that term, assigning it anyplace they don't like the word "death" for their own purposes.
If we see the word "dead" or "death" we should assume it means real death, unless the context demands otherwise.
If someone is "spiritually dead" there are not actually dead. You're speaking in a sense they are lack spiritual understanding to the degree of being in danger of the condemnation of death in judgment. But too often I see people playing fast and loose with that term, assigning it anyplace they don't like the word "death" for their own purposes.
If we see the word "dead" or "death" we should assume it means real death, unless the context demands otherwise.
I'm not big on using Wikipedia for anything past trite facts... but the very story binds to actual events in the gospels that are "disconnected" in occurrence. This and the clear fact that it is found among Jesus' use of "parables" is a pretty big fact to "discount".
In fact...
In Luke 17 ... Jesus continues to speak in the verbiage of "parables" right up until ... Luke 17:11.
Luke 16 (in reference to the Rich man and Lazarus) is one of the deepest dispensational utterances of Jesus. How this could be missed kind of shocks me. The only thing I can reason is that it is being used to support "false doctrine"... and thus... people miss it's true meaning by demanding it be used to support their false assertion.
Rosenritter
New member
The exact phrase may be up for debate. KJV reads differently: it uses "shall" which indicates that the event has the authority and surety of command, making it so the commandment is set on that very day. The time event modifies the shalt.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Your quotation (in similar form to some translations) used "will" changes it to a prediction that Adam dies on that day. So people ask, did God fail to predict correctly? Assuming his prediction (not a commandment, but a prediction) was accurate, they have to figure out some way that Adam DID die that day. So the answer is "invisibly, so no one could tell..."
In this sense, there is a disagreement among bible translations. KJV and ESV read differently than NLT and NASB in this regard. Sometimes different translations are matters of slightly different wording, but in this case it's a different meaning that lies at the foundation of this Eternal Conscious Torment discussion. If the dead are really dead, ECT cannot exist. But if dead doesn't mean dead, then all the statements about the nature of death can be ignored under this banner.
I have been overly flamed for saying that translations do make a difference in doctrinal matters. Here's an example where it does.
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Your quotation (in similar form to some translations) used "will" changes it to a prediction that Adam dies on that day. So people ask, did God fail to predict correctly? Assuming his prediction (not a commandment, but a prediction) was accurate, they have to figure out some way that Adam DID die that day. So the answer is "invisibly, so no one could tell..."
In this sense, there is a disagreement among bible translations. KJV and ESV read differently than NLT and NASB in this regard. Sometimes different translations are matters of slightly different wording, but in this case it's a different meaning that lies at the foundation of this Eternal Conscious Torment discussion. If the dead are really dead, ECT cannot exist. But if dead doesn't mean dead, then all the statements about the nature of death can be ignored under this banner.
I have been overly flamed for saying that translations do make a difference in doctrinal matters. Here's an example where it does.
I'm going to say this on these matters... "Pagan" "myth" often intersect with biblical revelation about the Adversary. It occurs all throughout scripture.
Who do you think Ba'al is?
If you think he's a myth... you missed the connection of the "covenant / ministry of Death".
Lon
Well-known member
Do tell :think: I've seen a good bit, never seen anything that would have ECT on the ropes. ImHo, 'seems' a lot of hype.
3 reasons I am personally ECT (not to persuade, but to give conviction as to why I will not change):
1) I am convinced Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable (again not for debate or rebuttal, it is a fact).
Even if it 'were' a parable, I am convinced the Lord Jesus Christ would never have said false things about actual places.
When death and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire, you may argue annihilation at that point, but for now, anguish is portrayed without excuse, by our Lord Jesus Christ (again, not to argue or get feedback. These are my convictions about what I see as true).
2) Several scriptures clearly express an ongoing anguish regarding final end, to me (already given in the list in thread).
3) I yet believe, the lesser sin, is to not tell pagans/heathen they will be annihilated for them only to find you'd given them false hope and gave it to them 'as if' it were true. Imho, your conviction about something you don't know, is the worse crime.
One more point: A hanging, without a trial, no matter how 'sure' you are, is a sin and crime. Lynch mobs are always bad.
There is NO WAY you can say God is bad if ECT exists. You don't have all the facts. It is simply and plainly: lynch mob mentality and wrong. You and I do not have all the facts and to try and say God is wicked according to ECT, imho, is a sin by false accusation and the hanging of an innocent man, no matter how convinced you were right, you were. Lynch mobs are ALWAY bad unless they get really lucky.
Rosenritter
New member
@Lon, I forgot to mention this the other night, but Lon, you said something about there being a difference before Jesus and after Jesus. I don't buy that. I'm not persuaded that salvation is offered by obedience to a mere set of rules during one date, and by a different standard of love and faith else wise. That sounds rather MAD to me.
Romans 4 King James Version (KJV)
4 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
All of the heroes of faith are accounted worthy because of their faith, not from properly following rules under a covenant. The covenants of old had their benefits, but they didn't of themselves offer eternal life.
When translation becomes an issue... authority of repetition and Christology take president. This is a theological fact that many could learn from.
Example... God could not have "commanded" towards Adam and Eve in Gen. 2 because Paul makes it clear in Romans 7 that we were alive "apart from the LAW". The second God "Commands"... we are "under Law". It isn't until Gen. 3 that God identifies that Adam had "violated a Command".
This is imperative to know to "rightly divide and discern doctrine".
Free Will Theism makes it abundantly clear that God didn't set us up for failure by giving a "command" He had "commanded" a "tempter" to "deceive" us to "disobedience". This stays in check with the very nature of Christ.
If I tamper with this order that is revealed in all scripture... We end up with the God that created people to "burn eternally"... and for no other purpose. That's a pretty big deal.
Lon
Well-known member
It would be a point worth mentioning, vision or not. I don't have the hang-up some do regarding them and side with you that they convey truth and actuals. My question: "When?" Prior to the Lord Jesus Christ's DBR? To me, that makes the most sense.
Good study, berean. I'd simply say that at hades/paradise was described, both are subsumed or to be subsumed by their counterparts and so Paradise is in Heaven now (as I understand it). My view isn't 'just' my view, but thank you for your study and service here. -Lon
Lon,
Say I hand you Hitler and a blowtorch that never runs out of fuel... plus a way to rig it up in your basement so he will suffer this pain until He dies... but then I give you a medicine that prevents him from dying... so you can be assured that Hitler is "burning" in your basement... as you go about your business.
Would you do it?
And before you answer... remember these verses.
Mt. 9:13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Heb. 6:6 as well... 1 Cor. 13 ... And Hosea 6:6 also.
Also... is there any place in scripture where God prescribes a "Death by Torture that lasts for longer than a day?
Oh... and ... sincerely... is eternal torture Love to God's enemies?
Lon
Well-known member
Not sure there is disagreement but perhaps misunderstanding rather, concerning the greater thread concern. I was merely explaining the fallacy.
Yowch. Will keep this in mind. Thanks