Debunking Annihilationism

Then He'd be using the Jewish concept of "everlasting damnation", not yours.

The funny thing, Jews don't have that concept.There are a lot of concepts that are attributed to Jesus that just don't correspond to mainstream Jewish though of the 1st century. Amazingly, it is from concept borrowed from the Greeks, and the New Testament was written in Greek. Can you imagine that??? How a poor Jewish boy from Galleli would be so familar with hellenized Judaism .. gasp. It is almost as if later writers PUT words into his mouth.

Get out of town!We all know that people in positions of power always hold fast to the principles of truth and righteousness out of their undying love for the little guy.

Correct one piece of nonsense and up pops another...As I already said, Jesus does not teach anything that is culture bound, nor does any Bible writer. I mentioned the culture of the Jews in answer to the absurd idea that He'd be teaching a Greek concept, but I also said that He teaches absolutely nothing from mere culture. If the idea of everlasting damnation was foreign to the Jews then Jesus is teaching it to them as well as to us. There is no mistaking the meaning of "everlasting." Jesus, in speaking to the Jews and using their concepts for the sake of communication, is very far from teaching their distorted understanding of their own scriptures. Jesus is God, He's always teaching a new understanding against the distortions of the scriptures He kept encountering in the Pharisees.

What about all that crazy stuff in Leviticus? Are you saying that you don't eat shellfish or wear garments made of mixed fabrics?Or, you, as a women, don't speak in church?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Who are you quoting? Not me.Hasn't this been answered dozens of times already? The food laws were specifically rescinded in the New Testament. You know, when Peter had that vision right before taking the gospel to the Gentile family of Cornelius.I've been making my way through a huge bag of frozen shrimp for a couple weeks now. Bacon's gone up in price though, may wait until it comes down.And again, women are forbidden to have an authoritative role in church. This isn't church, and I certainly have no authority here anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your mistake isn't in the "everlasting" part; it's in the "damnation" part. It could be everlasting oblivion as easily as everlasting torment.

Whoops, sorry. I meant to quote this part: That crazy stuff in Leviticus is "culture bound". Right, that's what I mean. The Bible writer who wrote the stuff in Levituc taught things that were culture bound.

Faith you know I respect you, you are very intelligent and communicate well. But I must continue to disagree. Here's why:

quote:

---

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

---

Sure we can throw verses around and read our preconceived ideas into the text, eisegesis, but in order to honestly exegete it requires a little more digging.All throughout Matthew 25 Jesus is speaking about His return. The Parable of the Ten Virgins/Maidens is just that. As is the parable of the ten talents. This is because his disciples came to him to ask about the future in the previous chapter, Matt 24:3. When we get down to Matt 25:46, Jesus is continuing this line of thought, talking about what is to come.There are really two issues here that are in question:- The translation of the word "αἰώνιος" (ainios)
- The character of GodThe word αἰώνιος, in general means "agelong, eternal," but this is only a really broad translation. More than "agelong" the word speaks less about the future, or how much time is passing, and more about the quality of the time. Therefore the word speaks more to the nature of the punishment than to an amount of time. A different way to think about it is " a punishment with eternal characteristics." In the same way, believers are confidant in their salvation, and "live in eternal life" now, "eternal punishment" cannot simply be understood to mean "a specific time in the future that will go on for eternity." This isn't substantial enough evidence though to prove my point however, so I will continue.It really does appear to be straightforward, but this is so much of a greater issue than one verse. The issue, in reality, is the character of God. Jesus said that to see him is to see the Father (John 8:11-13). If he is truly the "visible image of the invisible God" (Col 1:15), how can we reconcile the Christ who healed the broken, ate with prostitutes, and willingly laid down his life so mankind could be saved with a God who tortures people forever for sins committed in an infinitesimally tiny amount of time? The same God who told his disciples "forgive not 7 times, but 70x7 times" would then not be demonstrating his ability to forgive, but instead the opposite. This one is great, because it helps us even more to understand the meaning of the word "eternal." The word in greek for "damnation" is actually "ἁμαρτήματος" which is actually derived from the word for "sin," rather than "damnation" Source.This again, speaks much more to the big deal-ness of Blaspheming against the Spirit. By believing in a sort of after death state for eternal punishment, one is actually softening how terrible sin really is. It cannot exist where God is, and it simply doesnt make sense that God would keep an area of the universe where sin is still alive and well simply because of some sort of twisted justice. God is victorious over sin (Romans 7, 8), and conquered death with his resurrection. Love wins over eternal conscious torture. And when I write "love," I mean, the loving thing from God's perspective is inferred in scripture to be destroying sin completely. It honestly just makes more sense. I love this one, because it proves the point for us. Jews did not believe in the immortality of the human soul. (Ecc. 9:5). The idea is incredibly greek and did not make its way into christian thought until years after the death of Christ. The great hope of Christianity, is the resurrection. Paul speaks of it this way many times throughout the NT. If souls were immortal, there would be zero need for a resurrection, because God would have no need to resurrect sinful human flesh (Romans 6) when those who have died would already be in heaven/hell. It would be pointless. The two colliding concepts in specifically 1 Corinthians are in fact, the greek idea of the immortal soul, and the Christian hope in the resurrection. We find this in 1 Corinth. 15:

quote:

---

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. - 1 Corinth. 15:12-19

---

When exegeting a passage, it is important to ask some questions. "Why did the author write this? He is not writing in a vacuum, there was a reason. You don't tell your kid to "not touch the burner again" in a note unless he is has done it before. This principle is important for this passage.The beautiful hope of Christianity is the resurrection. It is what we cling to. To see loved ones again, is an amazing thing. And we find that in Christ is the assurance of this resurrection. Paul writes this to the very secular, Hellenistic community in Corinth because he needs to combat the concept of the immortal soul. Therefore, in this verse in Hebrews, the author states the resurrection of the dead, automatically ruling out any sort of immortal soul concepts. "eternal judgement" is also so ambiguous, and is again the same word used in Matthew, denoting not a specific time period in the future but the nature of the judgement. This one is especially indicative, and we can understand the meaning simply by using common sense as well. It is saying that Sodom and Gomorrha suffered "the vengeance of eternal fire" and yet, Sodom and Gomorrha were human cities on the earth. If they are, right now, experiencing burning forever, why arent they? Where are the two burning cities? In hell? Hardly a claim that could be backed up. The point of this text is perfect for better understanding the meaning of the term "eternal fire;" obviously, as we have concluded, the cities are not still burning today. It would be silly to conclude otherwise . The term "eternal fire" is shown here to again, denote the characteristics of the fire rather than an amount of time in the future. In simple terms, Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed with fire that cannot be quenched, "eternal" fire, fire that, when it burns, its results are so utterly annihilated there is nothing left for eternity.This may be a new concept for you, but when you think about it, it actually makes sense. God is a God of completion, and order, or so the common sayings go. It is much more in line with His character (revealed in Christ) to do something to completion, not lingering around. This is why eternal life, in comparison, is such a big deal, because it goes contrary to what sin does.So there we have it. Perhaps do a little more digging on your own as well! This is not easy to accept when it goes kind of contrary to the orthodox line of thought, but when you investigate for yourself, you will begin to realize the nonbiblical and very greek concept of hell's infiltration into Christian thought. It's subtle, but rest assured, love wins over death and horror. God really is that amazing. His grace really is that big. (Eph. 2).Regards!- Raph

Not only was the person who wrote Leviticus 'culture bound', but so are the people who are reinterpreting it. And, guess what , the cultures do not match. There are cultural assumptions being placed on the writings that did not exist for the writer!It has to be looked at in context of the culture of the time. Since a lot is unknown, some of the 'shades of grey' and meaning can only be speculated on.HOWEVER, until the Book of Daniel, there is no clear mention of an afterlife in Judaism, and the Book of Daniel was a later additions, from about 165 to 160 bce. All the interpretations of Sheol before then could be legitimately translated as 'the grave'.. or death. It wasn't until the Hellenistic influences, starting about 200 years before destruction of the second temple did you start getting the concept of an afterlife in the Jewish faith. Even in modern Judaism, it's not dogma, and there are many Jews who do not believe in 'the world to come'.

SpamEdited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.