Is the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment biblical or not?

[glorydaz]

I am left to think that either you don't have the courage to carry through on your beliefs, or you don't really love these babies that you could send on their way, or ... what I was suggesting earlier, that you might not really believe that in your heart of hearts.

I'm left to think that you're a humanist "wanna be" Christian...

Only a humanist would think of what your evil heart suggests.

Clearly, you haven't a clue of what is in the heart of someone created IN Christ Jesus.

What cult are you? 7 day Adventist? That would be my guess.

 

[Rosenritter]

You have to do a bit of studying....actually read the Bible instead of just dissect it to prove your point.

Got it. It's not written anywhere, but you're free to make things up and pretend it's scripture. Make sure you toss in a couple extra jibes like that "You're a wack job" from earlier. That really helps to boost credibility.

 

[glorydaz]

Your literary style is starting to resemble God's Truth more and more...

Don't forget...she's closer to you in belief.

Preach it.....I've got your number.

 

[glorydaz]

Got it. It's not written anywhere, but you're free to make things up and pretend it's scripture. Make sure you toss in a couple extra jibes like that "You're a wack job" from earlier. That really helps to boost credibility.

Yeah, like this one boost your credibility. You're a fraud, and I have seen your pointy ears and sharp teeth.

I am left to think that either you don't have the courage to carry through on your beliefs, or you don't really love these babies that you could send on their way, or ... what I was suggesting earlier, that you might not really believe that in your heart of hearts.

 

[Rosenritter]

Lon, had Jesus said "As touching that Abraham is now alive..." or "As touching that the dead live on as spirits" then that would match what you are saying. But he said the opposite, "As touching that the dead do rise...."

... and THEN he proved this by "God is the God of the Living, not the dead" -

You have not yet explained how (while assuming your doctrine) this statement requires the resurrection for fulfillment. And if you claim 600 million, that's 600 million failures to answer this simple question in any way that doesn't make Jesus a fool out of himself in front of his audience. Let's not play number games.

Let's explain this slightly differently Lon. In Christ's context, if God were the God of the dead, then there need be no resurrection because Abraham would never live again, and "I AM the God of Abraham" would just be referencing a historical figure, a figment of memory.

Jesus hasn't even taken a second breath in his rebuttal and you've already turned his meaning upside down.

:doh: "God is the God of the Living NOT the dead!" You'll get no capitulation or traction on this one. We aren't even going to be able to 'see your side' empathetically on this one, let alone change to annihilation. :nono: To us 600 million, it is very clear.

Not really helping imho. The body returns to the dust. I am not my body. 2 Corinthians 5:1 2 Peter 1:13

Seems God speaks differently in Genesis. He says that man is dust, and shall return to the dust. He doesn't differentiate that man is anything else. He doesn't say "I shall take your dust away" or "I shall take back the dirt from you."

Genesis 3:19 KJV
(19) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


You require a body for existence. You have a mortal body now. If you are changed, and only if you are changed, then you shall receive immortality. It's in Paul's definition of the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15. If you are not changed, you have not immortality.

I suppose I could claim that my computer wasn't the physical parts, but really the software and data that it stored, but do you think it could perform any calculation, do any task, or do anything if I destroyed its body, memory, motherboard, hard drives, reduced them to atoms? Paul says we shall not be found naked. There are only two options he gives; a corruptible body, or an incorruptible body received at the resurrection.

Vision doesn't mean illusion. :nono: It means "something seen."

The typical use of the term means something seen only in the mind. At least, that's what I've always thought. Let's check a quick dictionary definition, to see what the common use of this term means.

"A Vision" as in "saw a vision" or "it was a vision"...

noun

• 1. the faculty or state of being able to see.
  "she had defective vision"
  

  synonyms:

  eyesight, sight, observation, (visual) perception; More

• 2. an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition.
  "the idea came to him in a vision"
  

  synonyms:

  apparition, hallucination, illusion, mirage, specter, phantom, ghost, wraith, manifestation; More

Yes, because scripture says so.

:nono: Because scripture doesn't say so.

Lon, you are getting too careless here. Jesus doesn't say they saw a reality, he says they saw a vision. No where does it say that Moses and Elijah were alive and conscious in an ethereal realm before that time, and when you say "scripture says so" that hardly seems very honest.

Please respond seriously so that I can take you seriously. Unsupported claims that "it says so in the Good Book" fall a bit flat with me.

 

[Rosenritter]

Those that have the neck broken, by whatever means, are unredeemed. Exodus 13:13

How did you get that meaning from that passage?

 

[glorydaz]

Lon, had Jesus said "As touching that Abraham is now alive..." or "As touching that the dead live on as spirits" then that would match what you are saying. But he said the opposite, "As touching that the dead do rise...."

... and THEN he proved this by "God is the God of the Living, not the dead" -

You have not yet explained how (while assuming your doctrine) this statement requires the resurrection for fulfillment. And if you claim 600 million, that's 600 million failures to answer this simple question in any way that doesn't make Jesus a fool out of himself in front of his audience. Let's not play number games.

Let's explain this slightly differently Lon. In Christ's context, if God were the God of the dead, then there need be no resurrection because Abraham would never live again, and "I AM the God of Abraham" would just be referencing a historical figure, a figment of memory.

Jesus hasn't even taken a second breath in his rebuttal and you've already turned his meaning upside down.




Seems God speaks differently in Genesis. He says that man is dust, and shall return to the dust. He doesn't differentiate that man is anything else. He doesn't say "I shall take your dust away" or "I shall take back the dirt from you."

Genesis 3:19 KJV
(19) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.


You require a body for existence. You have a mortal body now. If you are changed, and only if you are changed, then you shall receive immortality. It's in Paul's definition of the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15. If you are not changed, you have not immortality.

I suppose I could claim that my computer wasn't the physical parts, but really the software and data that it stored, but do you think it could perform any calculation, do any task, or do anything if I destroyed its body, memory, motherboard, hard drives, reduced them to atoms? Paul says we shall not be found naked. There are only two options he gives; a corruptible body, or an incorruptible body received at the resurrection.

The typical use of the term means something seen only in the mind. At least, that's what I've always thought. Let's check a quick dictionary definition. "A Vision" as in "saw a vision" or "it was a vision"...

noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  the faculty or state of being able to see.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"she had defective vision"[/COLOR]
  

  synonyms:

  eyesight, sight, observation, (visual) perception; More

  
  
  
  • 
    [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
    
    
    
    
    
  • 
    [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
    [COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
    
    
    
  • 
    
    
  
  
  
  
  
• 2.
  an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition.
  [COLOR=#878787 !important]"the idea came to him in a vision"[/COLOR]
  

  synonyms:

  apparition, hallucination, illusion, mirage, specter, phantom, ghost, wraith, manifestation; More

  
  
  
  
  

Lon, you are getting too careless here. Jesus doesn't say they saw a reality, he says they saw a vision. No where does it say that Moses and Elijah were alive and conscious in an ethereal realm before that time, and when you say "scripture says so" that hardly seems very honest.

Please respond seriously so that I can take you seriously. Unsupported claims that "it says so in the Good Book" fall a bit flat with me.

Your "literary style" is long and windy....like the howl of the wolf. It suits you.

But, you're getting very "careless", sloppy even, with your quoting skills. What a mess. :chew:

 

[Rosenritter]

None say no awareness at all, just none of this physical life any more.

Lon, the passages don't specify "of this physical life" and speak specifically of love, hatred, envy, and even knowledge that you're dead. Somehow, in your mind, you are adding disclaimers to the scripture which would effectively nullify any reason for giving them in the first place.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 KJV
(5) For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
(6) Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.


Yet you have told me that the dead know quite well that they are dead. That's a stark contradiction. There's no magic "disclaimer" here. Emotions and knowledge are the realm of that which is truly us. And we are told here that death is the end of that period. Not "our bodies no longer know that we are dead" as you have claimed.

And it isn't one passage. I have heard attempts from "Defenders of Conscious Torment" that try the tack of trying to nullify whole books at a time in an attempt to get rid of them. If you won't listen to Solomon, there's Job. If you won't listen to Job, there's David. If you won't listen to David, there's God himself in Genesis. And so on and so forth.

Yes, but it only seeks a 'way' to reconcile truths. I can't do theology this way, else I'm emoting my way through theology. I realize we have our emotions from God, but, to me, they are like the warning lights on a car. Sometimes they throw false-positives. My engine light comes on all the time now, because I have a pinhole leak in my exhaust. My car's 'emotions' are messing me up for when something actually goes amok.

So you are telling me not that you lack feelings, but that you distrust those feelings for fear they might be false.

It is better to think our way through scriptures first. I think emotions simply in our lives as indicators. It is good your values throw a warning light, but we don't live by them. In autos, we must take it to a mechanic, or read up on it ourselves. I believe the same here: ECT throws a trouble light of our emotions. Mine too. I think, because we both threw the same trouble-light, your concern is justified. We, however, must not just attend the light, but the cause of it. God isn't, by any necessity, evil if ECT exists. We get accused of it, but there is NO connection. Example: Do you know of a scripture that says God created Hades or the Lake of Fire? I don't. By comparison, God didn't create sin or the sin condition. All I know, on close inspection, is that people get there, and Hades, death, and Satan are reserved for the Lake of Fire.

Yes, I do know of a scripture that says God creates the lake of fire. Or at least, it's pretty close to it, if you connect two dots:
1) God prophesies in Ezekiel that he will take the devil, and bring forth a fire in the midst of him, that it consume him and burn him to ashes, that he will be never more.
2) God prophesies in Revelation that he will take the devil, and cast him into the lake of fire, and he's there forever.

As such the fire in Ezekiel brought forth by God in the midst of him and the lake of fire seem like that makes them equivalent, it does seem that it tells me that God will create the lake of fire. That is, in the future, it doesn't exist now. Especially since God says that he will do this in the sight of all that are on the earth, meaning the lake of fire is on earth. We can see the surface of the earth right now, it isn't there.

Ezekiel 28:18 KJV
(18) Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

 

[Rosenritter]

Can you show me where the Bible says that we have eternal spirits? I can think of where it says that eternal life is a gift that we must receive, if we believe in Christ. Nothing about eternal spirits other than The Eternal Spirit that created all things.

yes


an execution separates the finite flesh from the eternal spirit.
:execute:

 

[Rosenritter]

I suppose if we wax philosophical we could say that everything exists because it has the potential to be made from existing atoms. Purple flying unicorns? They exist, their atoms are here, and there... just need assembly.

But that's not the way God speaks. He says that the angel that sinned that was in Eden will be consumed by fire, and never shall be any more.

Spoiler

Ezekiel 28:13-19 KJV
(13) Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
(14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
(15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
(16) By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
(17) Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
(18) Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
(19) All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.

Does physical fire actually make things non-existent? Or does it actually simply change the physical properties of said objects? :think:

What about a different kind of fire? :think:

 

[Rosenritter]

So when a person engages in a seance and calls up a spirit that says it's name is Jesus, you should believe it?

No, and NO. Or YES, I am sure. I have considered what all kinds of learned men have had to say on just about every topic (including this one) over my forty plus years walking with the Lord. I also studied it for myself, and sought the Lord's enlightenment, as I always do as I read the word. Samuel was not summoned by the seer...she knew she was a fraud and unable to call up spirits. I'm surprised you don't. God, however can summon up whoever He desires for whatever purpose He desires and that is what you see here. God had told Saul, through Samuel when he was alive, that He would no longer listen to Saul. But, in His infinite mercy, He decided to send Samuel to tell Saul one more time....giving him a chance to call on God for mercy before his life ended. Many believe that Saul did call on God before the end....I don't know, and man can only speculate. Should I believe those speculations, too?

Rather, I see the Scripture says it's Samuel, and Samuel is speaking the same words he had spoken before. He gave Saul no false hope or information. If you want to allow your opinions to be formed by others....who have no better access to the scripture than we all do, that's your concern. Not mine.

I'm not out to "gain" anything. I have no dog in the fight...other than what I have found as truth from the word. I don't care what you or others think about it...one way or the other.

Have you found any other men of God responding to spiritualists after death being talked about in the Bible? If so, please share those.

 

[Rosenritter]

SO? Does that mean your translation is better than mine?

Actually, yes it does in this point. An accurate translation takes care not to insert words that aren't in the text and which otherwise lack support when they would significantly alter the meaning. When there's two translations that give entirely different meanings, there's no way around it but to say that one must be better than the other, and the best way to judge is to compare the source text.

Does it mean that because you find no indication of something it can't exist?

It does mean that dogmatically stating that it does exist without evidence is "making things up" without evidence.

As far as being "fireproof", the burning bush did a pretty good job of being that.

Yes, the exception that proves the rule that it is highly unusual for a thing not to be consumed by fire. Did you notice Moses found this very unusual? Did you also notice that the bush was NOT HARMED by the fire? You have destroyed your own point.

So if you really want to use that as the example, our only other examples of when fire does NOT consume is when it also DOES NOT HARM. I'll give you a second example if you really want it, look in Daniel. Again, did not consume and CAUSED NO HARM.

The rule otherwise being that fire consumed and destroys, and unless it specifically says it does not, that is what it does.

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm simply pointing out that your stated beliefs and your actions are inconsistent with each other. You also seemed to call mass abortion both good and evil within the same post. It is written, that "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways." My motive is that if you will at least be consistent, I might then understand you.

I'm left to think that you're a humanist "wanna be" Christian...

Only a humanist would think of what your evil heart suggests.

Clearly, you haven't a clue of what is in the heart of someone created IN Christ Jesus.

What cult are you? 7 day Adventist? That would be my guess.

 

[glorydaz]

So when a person engages in a seance and calls up a spirit that says it's name is Jesus, you should believe it?

I would never fall for such nonsense in the first place. So that's another stupid question.

 

[Rosenritter]

Don't forget...she's closer to you in belief.

Preach it.....I've got your number.

And in respect to context of that comment (as to God being One) Lon has said that he and I are very close to similar understanding.

The important part here is that you aren't my enemy, Lon isn't my enemy, and even with as much frustration as topics like these might entail, we aren't calling each other names and launching personal attacks. If I say something that makes you uncomfortable, it's not because I like tormenting you, but hoping that you'll come off that fence that you're sitting on and at least answer consistently. I can work with consistent.

 

[Rosenritter]

I would never fall for such nonsense in the first place. So that's another stupid question.

Well, that's what Saul did. And what came up called itself Samuel. Apparitions are known to lie. And tell me, is it easier for an account to say "the spirit that claimed to be Samuel said such and such" or "Samuel said such and such?"

Mark 2:9 KJV
(9) Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

They are the same thing in this context. The thing that claimed to be Samuel said ... and so forth. You're supposed to have the wisdom to recognize that necromancy and seances don't summon anything of God, and God doesn't participate in such.

Again, I'm asking for consistency.

 

[Rosenritter]

Yeah, like this one boost your credibility. You're a fraud, and I have seen your pointy ears and sharp teeth.

So I'm the one that declares abortion an atrocity that sacrifices babes to the devil, and you come out and say you support it and call it a blessing, and that makes you the good one?

Glorydaz, check your premises again. Please.

 

[Rosenritter]

Maybe if you waited 5 minutes before trying to quote. Those HTML tags do surprise stunts that don't show until submit is hit. Seriously, you're slamming me with personal attacks because I fixed the format afterwards now?

Your "literary style" is long and windy....like the howl of the wolf. It suits you.

But, you're getting very "careless", sloppy even, with your quoting skills. What a mess. :chew:

 

[Lon]

Lon, had Jesus said "As touching that Abraham is now alive..." or "As touching that the dead live on as spirits" then that would match what you are saying. But he said the opposite, "As touching that the dead do rise...."

... and THEN he proved this by "God is the God of the Living, not the dead" -

You have not yet explained how (while assuming your doctrine) this statement requires the resurrection for fulfillment. And if you claim 600 million, that's 600 million failures to answer this simple question in any way that doesn't make Jesus a fool out of himself in front of his audience. Let's not play number games.

1) Not claiming 600 million, just saying that 600 million hold to the orthodox position at least tentatively if not at any academic length. 2) You have got to be kidding? Right? Not ONE of us has touched your concern? Not even One? Are you sure?
3) Realize, before the Lord Jesus Christ raised to life after His death and burial, that things changed dramatically. What was true then, as I understand is that Abraham and all who had died, at this time, were in one side or the other of Hades. Their bodies, not alive. Their physical awareness? Not available. AFTER the resurrection, the OT saints and all believers now go directly to heaven. He IS the God of the Living. It doesn't matter how you slice it after that, Jesus said, word for word "He is the God of the Living, He is NOT the God of the dead." For me? Done and the end.

Let's explain this slightly differently Lon. In Christ's context, if God were the God of the dead, then there need be no resurrection because Abraham would never live again, and "I AM the God of Abraham" would just be referencing a historical figure, a figment of memory.

Jesus hasn't even taken a second breath in his rebuttal and you've already turned his meaning upside down.

Not at all. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. He was looking for a place Who's Builder was God.

Seems God speaks differently in Genesis. He says that man is dust, and shall return to the dust. He doesn't differentiate that man is anything else. He doesn't say "I shall take your dust away" or "I shall take back the dirt from you."

Then you are no different than the animals. My version of Genesis has God breathing into man's nostrils and making him in His own image :think:

Genesis 3:19 KJV
(19) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And yet, on the day of eating that tree, they should surely die. They didn't return to the dust that day, in fact, that was the curse, that Adam would have to work it until his body returned to dust. To be sure, you believe man is only a physical being. Period. At least until the judgement, correct?

You require a body for existence. You have a mortal body now. If you are changed, and only if you are changed, then you shall receive immortality. It's in Paul's definition of the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15. If you are not changed, you have not immortality.

[MENTION=17606]Derf[/MENTION] already questioned this sufficiently that I think you should have enough pause over such.

I suppose I could claim that my computer wasn't the physical parts, but really the software and data that it stored, but do you think it could perform . any calculation, do any task, or do anything if I destroyed its body, memory, motherboard, hard drives, reduced them to atoms? Paul says we shall not be found naked. There are only two options he gives; a corruptible body, or an incorruptible body received at the resurrection.

1) Yes, that is true. You cannot destroy a log in a fire either. You simply change its form. 2) We are not simply animals. God did something different. In fact, He requires you to love Him with your heart (emotion and drives), soul, doesn't die, mind, your thinking and choices, and strength, your flesh. Of the four, how many are 'of the flesh?'

The typical use of the term means something seen only in the mind. At least, that's what I've always thought. Let's check a quick dictionary definition, to see what the common use of this term means.

"A Vision" as in "saw a vision" or "it was a vision"...

noun

• 1. the faculty or state of being able to see.
  "she had defective vision"
  

  synonyms:

  eyesight, sight, observation, (visual) perception; More

• 2. an experience of seeing someone or something in a dream or trance, or as a supernatural apparition.
  "the idea came to him in a vision"
  

  synonyms:

  apparition, hallucination, illusion, mirage, specter, phantom, ghost, wraith, manifestation; More

:nono: 1) Webster's says 'seen.' 2) read a bible concordance dictionary for THIS particular word.

Lon, you are getting too careless here.

Nope, that man is you, very sloppy, in fact, to try and make it my problem. It ain't gonna fly.

Jesus doesn't say they saw a reality, he says they saw a vision. No where does it say that Moses and Elijah were alive and conscious in an ethereal realm before that time, and when you say "scripture says so" that hardly seems very honest.

Well, then call me dishonest, because I sure don't believe you or whatever you've contrived. Peter wanted to build tents :noway: You are being ridiculous imho. Why? To protect something that I think, even for you, is crumbling away. That's good imho, because I think there is strength in orthodoxy and numbers. I'm here for your good, not for your harm.

Please respond seriously so that I can take you seriously. Unsupported claims that "it says so in the Good Book" fall a bit flat with me.

Good. Let me have you address this:
Matthew 17:4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

It doesn't matter to me, to be victorious. It matters to me that He gets His way between us. I've already said, it is my position that Annihilation isn't the best understanding of texts to me. "Seriously..." I have been a bit genteel, but no less serious these last two posts. -Lon

 

[glorydaz]

Actually, yes it does in this point. An accurate translation takes care not to insert words that aren't in the text and which otherwise lack support when they would significantly alter the meaning. When there's two translations that give entirely different meanings, there's no way around it but to say that one must be better than the other, and the best way to judge is to compare the source text.

Nothing was changed with the translations.

It does mean that dogmatically stating that it does exist without evidence is "making things up" without evidence.

Then just stop doing it.

Yes, the exception that proves the rule that it is highly unusual for a thing not to be consumed by fire. Did you notice Moses found this very unusual? Did you also notice that the bush was NOT HARMED by the fire? You have destroyed your own point.

So if you really want to use that as the example, our only other examples of when fire does NOT consume is when it also DOES NOT HARM. I'll give you a second example if you really want it, look in Daniel. Again, did not consume and CAUSED NO HARM.

The rule otherwise being that fire consumed and destroys, and unless it specifically says it does not, that is what it does.

Quite the rule follower, aren't you? Too bad you're so bad and figuring out what people are actually saying. You're exactly like God's UNtruth, you hear what you want to hear and then accuse them of saying what they never said.

Your insistence that the fire "caused no harm" is silly. If the unjust get thrown in the lake of fire, and are not consumed, it actually proves the point you're trying to deny. The bush didn't just disintegrate in the flames, as you claim the unjust will.

God is a consuming fire. I'm the one who brought up the refiner's fire, and you scoffed at that, too. He can go either way with his fire. He can destroy or refine or just burn forever. Who are you, oh man, to think you can dictate what is possible with God?