Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Fires of Hell Have Gone Out: No Eternal Torment
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 155 of 300 (310113)
05-07-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by jaywill
05-07-2006 8:10 PM


Re: Eternal Torment
quote:
No position is much easier to defend.
This is my topic, my position is very clear, starting with the OP.
quote:
I notice your posts are coming with fewer and fewer words, one liners, cautious, witholding your opinion.
Present something that has some substance to it and deals with the topic and then I might have something to say.
I'd appreciate it if you would deal with the topic and discussion and stop trying to characterize me. Remember, argue the position not the person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by jaywill, posted 05-07-2006 8:10 PM jaywill has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 165 of 300 (310224)
05-08-2006 8:05 AM


The OP Revisited
It has been brought to my attention that my charges of off-topic may have been unwarranted. Since this topic has been revived, I think we need to revisit my original post. I feel that my opponents have read the title, but haven't really read or understood the crux of my argument.
Actually the eternal fires of "Hell" do not exist anymore.
The NT word translated as hell is actually Gehenna which is Greek for the Valley of Hinnom.
The Valley of Hinnom had a very horrendous history in ancient times. It was used as a place where the pagan worshipers did all sorts of vile and wicked things - including burning children alive as sacrifices to the idols Moloch and Baal. One section of the valley was called Tophet, or the "fire-stove," where the children were slaughtered (2 Kings 23:10). It was a place of tremendous evil for many years.
After the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, the valley became the city’s incinerator. Apparently they even added sulpur or brimstone to keep the fires burning continuously.
Gehenna became a vivid symbol of destruction and an abomination.
Therefore if your dead body was thrown into Gehenna, you were deemed a criminal. Your body was destroyed and you had no part in the world to come. This is the picture that the NT authors were presenting, not eternal torment.
Gehenna is no longer burning. Photos of Hell
Fortunately the scriptures do not support the teaching of eternal torment.
The only scripture that might support the teaching is:
Matt 25:46”"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
If one was to receive eternal torment as taught, then the person would still be "living".
IOW being tormented throughout his eternal life, but this verse states that only the righteous receive eternal life.
Therefore the punishment is death by destruction in the Lake of Fire, which is eternal in the sense that it is a permanent judgment. No resurrection for this person.
Eternal life is for the righteous and all others just cease to exist.
If you notice the fires of "Hell" that I'm talking about refer to the Valley of Hinnom, which are no longer burning. The term "Gehenna" is not used in Revelation. Hades is used in the Book of Revelation.
Also notice, I did not say there was no lake of fire. My "hell" reference refers to Gehenna.
If we look at the etymology of the word "hell", we see that it is more closely related to Hades or the grave. Gehenna is neither. Nothing living was thrown into Gehenna. It symbolized destruction, not torment.
Since the word "hell" is used to refer to Hades in the KJV, then the lake of fire referred to in Revelation 20:14 (And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.) isn't hell either.
If you want to show me that the scriptures do promote eternal (without end) torment, then show me in relation to what I stated.
If one was to receive eternal torment as taught, then the person would still be "living".
IOW being tormented throughout his eternal life, but this verse (Mat 25:46) states that only the righteous receive eternal life.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 173 of 300 (310330)
05-08-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Modulous
05-08-2006 11:40 AM


Hades
quote:
I was merely showing that Hades is presented as a place of fire and torment, as per Revelations which describes it as a lake of fire.
Since this has been revived I've had a chance for a fresh look. I still don't think the parable was dealing with eternal torment, but did notice something else.
Hades by reputation is split into two places supposedly, a side for the good (Bosom of Abraham) and the side for the wicked, which supposedly has fire. Let's say people go to Hades after death as described in the parable. I noticed that Revelation does not describe Hades as a lake of fire.
Hades gives up its dead.
Rev 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
Hades and Death are thrown into the lake of fire.
Re 20:14
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
So if Hades gives up its dead for final judgment and is then thrown into the lake of fire, then the lake of fire is not Hades and Hades is not an eternal spot for anything.
The word Gehenna is not used by the author of Revelation, which was supposedly written about 90-95ce, but is used by the synoptic authors and once in James. The phrase "lake of fire" is used by the author of Revelation but not by the synoptic authors.
Some have said that Gehenna is the lake of fire, but as a visual the actual Gehenna was a pit.
While the term Gehenna can be connected with the Valley of Hinnom can it really be connected with the lake of fire other than by tradition?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2006 11:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by DorfMan, posted 05-08-2006 5:14 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 177 by jaywill, posted 05-08-2006 5:55 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2006 2:16 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 180 of 300 (310405)
05-08-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by DorfMan
05-08-2006 5:14 PM


Lazarus and The Rich Man
This commentary on Lazarus and the Rich Man has a very interesting outlook dealing with Gentiles and the Jews.
I don't know that I agree with that symbolism, but the thoughts concerning the Hades in the story address some of your questions.
But I don't feel the parable was about eternal torment or Hades.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by DorfMan, posted 05-08-2006 5:14 PM DorfMan has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 185 of 300 (310450)
05-09-2006 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Modulous
05-09-2006 2:16 AM


Hell or Hades
I understand what the word "Hell" has come to mean by tradition. If you notice what I referred to in my OP Revisited in Message 165, I'm looking at what was actually used in the Bible.
The King James Version translated Gehenna and Hades into the Old English word “hell”.
In the Greek the word translated "hell" is geenna,n {gheh'-en-nah} and in the Latin gehennam. Both of which refer to the proper name of the valley.
I can’t find the Greek rendition of Hades, but the Latin is infernum which means lower, under; underground, of the lower regions.
As for the Old English word “hell”.
The Irish potato farmers used to say they put their potatoes in "hell" - the grave. They dug holes, put the potatoes in them, covered them with dirt. It was called the grave or hell.
It carries the meaning of concealed or buried, to cover. So it is not a good translation for Gehenna. The word “hell” has nothing to do with fire. The Latin equivalent is celare which we see is not the word that was translated from the Latin Bible.
Since Hades is the underworld, the word “hell” might have been reasonable to translate Hades, but that would be the overall underworld, not just describing the firey section. Today, my Bible does not translate Hades as hell. The only word in my Bible translated as hell is Gehenna.
As I showed in my OP, Gehenna is no longer burning.
Hades is the underworld, Gehanna is not. The hell in my Bible is no longer burning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2006 2:16 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2006 7:16 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 186 of 300 (310451)
05-09-2006 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by DorfMan
05-07-2006 10:09 PM


Re: Forever
During the course of this thread revival I found several references stating that our word eternal (without end) or forever and ever are not accurate translations of the Greek aionos phrases.
I noticed, as you showed, that is should be translated ages of ages. I hadn't really found any site that actual addressed what that meant in context.
This article, "Forever and Ever"--A Poor Translation, brings up a very interesting answer.
So what is meant by this expression? Many KJV tradition scholars say that these three different Greek phrases are idiomatic expressions for "eternity." Idiotic, perhaps, but not idiomatic! Similar expressions used in the Scriptures are cited in order to illustrate the meaning: Song of Solomon 1:1, "song of songs;" Eccl. 12:8, "vanity of vanities;" Gen 9:25, "servant of servants;" Ex. 26:33, "holy of the holies;" Deut. 10:17, "God of gods and Lord of lords;" Dan. 8:25, "prince of princes;" Phil. 3:5, "Hebrew of Hebrews;" 1 Tim. 6:15, "King of kings and Lord of lords." Most students of the Scriptures understand what is meant by such expressions, so why is Eph. 3:21, "eon of the eons" an enigma? The eon of the eons refers to the final and greatest of all eons. That it cannot refer to "eternity" is shown by the statement that there will be "generations," which implies procreation, which will not happen in eternity since we will then be like the angels. This eon succeeds the millennial eon, and is previous to the final state.
It does shed new light on the whole punishment and torment thing.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by DorfMan, posted 05-07-2006 10:09 PM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by DorfMan, posted 05-09-2006 3:09 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 194 by jaywill, posted 05-09-2006 3:27 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 188 of 300 (310467)
05-09-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Modulous
05-09-2006 7:16 AM


Gehenna
quote:
If Hell=the Valley of Hinnom, then I agree, it is long extinguished. However, that doesn't mean that there is no fiery underworld for the wicked, since Hades - described as an underworld of torment/flame - still exists unless the Revelation has come to pass. Once revelation comes about, those not in the book of life will be cast into the lake of fire.
So we are agreed then.
Gehenna is not Hades.
Hades is the underworld with two zones (hot and cold so to speak).
Gehenna, although a continuous fire in its day, is no longer burning.
Where Gehenna is translated as hell does not mention eternal fire.
Gehenna is not used in the Book of Revelation.
Lake of fire is not used by the authors of the synoptics.
As I said before, I did not claim that the lake of fire was no longer burning or that the fire in Hades was no longer burning. Neither of those are referred to as Hell in my Bible.
Gehenna, which is referred to as Hell in my Bible, is no longer burning.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2006 7:16 AM Modulous has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 196 of 300 (310554)
05-09-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
05-09-2006 1:44 PM


Whitewash
quote:
It takes a lot of spiritual study and experience to begin to understand most of it . and it worries me when people whitewash it because that just lulls them into complacency when they should be concerned about their own future.
Exactly, but the kicker is, whitewash can hide a good fence as well as a bad one.
Even in the military a soldier has the right to disobey an unlawful order and if I’m going to be held accountable for my actions, then I need to know that I’m basing my actions on the right information.
When a preacher or evangelist says something that is off center from what is written in my own language, then I start to investigate.
As I investigate and find that translations of my Holy Writings vary greatly, then I investigate deeper. I note mistranslations.
As I dig deeper into the foundation and divest the writings as much as possible of modern thinking, I can see a glimpse of what the authors were truly saying to their immediate audience.
From that foundation I can review traditions and see what is necessary and what isn’t. That foundation allows me to discern if a preacher or evangelist is proclaiming something I must follow or not.
When I get to final judgment, I really don’t want my last words to be, “I was just following orders.” Even if the orders are unlawful, I’m still responsible for my actions.
So with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I will continue to unearth the foundation of spirituality.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Faith, posted 05-09-2006 1:44 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by DorfMan, posted 05-09-2006 8:09 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 203 of 300 (310665)
05-10-2006 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by DorfMan
05-10-2006 3:27 AM


Re: Whitewash
Thank you for Message 198.
It is interesting to note that although Rev 14:10-11 reads:
14:10
he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
14:11
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
When we clear out preconceived ideas and actually read as we do any other book, we see that it is the smoke that goes up "forever", not the torment.
Again while Revelation 20:10 states:
Re 20:10
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
When we clear out the preconceived ideas, we see that it is the devil, the beast, and the false prophet (all singular) who will be tormented "forever".
I haven't looked deeper into the ages of ages or age of ages thing yet, but if it is an accurate translation and reading of the phrasing, then all these come to an end at the final judgment. I still don't see torment being handed out at final judgment.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by DorfMan, posted 05-10-2006 3:27 AM DorfMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by jaywill, posted 05-10-2006 10:05 AM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2006 10:40 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 217 of 300 (310989)
05-11-2006 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Buzsaw
05-10-2006 10:40 PM


Down to Brass Tacks
Since you're responding to Message 203 I'm assuming you also read Message 196 which is the beginning of the Whitewash series. If you have, then you are aware of how I study and learn from the Bible. This thread on Matthew will help you understand my view of that author's work. Please keep all that in mind when you read my response.
Matthew is a biography of Jesus and Revelation (90-95ce) is a vision that took place after the death of Jesus. Mark (65-80ce) is considered the first synoptic written. Matthew (80-100ce) and Luke (80-130ce) were written later. Matthew more than likely was before Luke. The author of Luke presents himself as an investigator. So I find it interesting when comparing Mark and Matthew, to see what the author of Luke put in his bio of Jesus.
Mark does not use the word devil (diabolos) at all and Luke only in relation to the tempting of Jesus in which the author of Mark uses (satanas) and the parable of the seeds. Maybe a sign of a changing view.
The "lake of fire" is only in Revelation. Matthew is the only gospel that mentions eternal fire.
The point being that we need to understand what each author is saying within their own work. So asking me about Matthew 25:41 in relation to Rev 20:10 is unreasonable.
Matthew is a bio about Jesus while he walked this earth telling everyone that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Judgment day was imminent. That judgment day didn't happen. Revelation is a vision given to John a considerable time after Jesus' resurrection and IMO, deals with the ultimate judgment day.
So when the author of Matthew writes about what Jesus said about the sheep and the goats and the devil and his angels, IMO, Jesus would be referring to the imminent judgment day. Even if I'm incorrect in that view, the fact is that Revelation is the final vision. It takes place after Jesus had left. Since it is supposedly a vision from Jesus, wouldn't it overrule whatever was written in Matthew?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Buzsaw, posted 05-10-2006 10:40 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2006 11:17 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 05-11-2006 12:10 PM purpledawn has replied
 Message 222 by DorfMan, posted 05-11-2006 12:16 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 226 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2006 9:32 PM purpledawn has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 219 of 300 (311020)
05-11-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Buzsaw
05-11-2006 11:17 AM


Re: Down to Brass Tacks
quote:
Your problem is that you're seeing Matthew and John in Revelation as contradictory.
No I don't. I see them in a timeline. I see each author with a purpose. God had a purpose for each to deal with the issues of their time.
quote:
By your strategy of applying the NT as a smorgasboard from which you are allowed to pick and choose to adjust to your personal views essentialy reduces the Bible to what each reader wishes to have it say.
Oddly enough I don't think I pick and choose. I'm trying to see what it actually does say in relation to the time it was written and the culture in which it was written.
quote:
Both texts in Matthew and Revelation are essentially the words of Jesus. Jesus was consistent and never contradicted himself when you consider total context.
But the fact is, you don't know that. Jesus didn't write his bio. He himself left no written words. The authors of the gospels wrote from their sources.
Actually if the gospels do contradict themselves, that isn't Jesus contradicting himself. It is really the authors of the gospel who would be contradicting themselves. That's why I find the book of Luke interesting. That author sided with Mark in most cases and not Matthew.
So how does my view of an immediate judgment that God didn't bring about for whatever reason, contradict Revelation or vice versa? How does that scenerio mean that Jesus is contradicting himself? I don't have the impression that Jesus contradicted himself and I'm not sure why you do.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Buzsaw, posted 05-11-2006 11:17 AM Buzsaw has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 223 of 300 (311042)
05-11-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Faith
05-11-2006 12:10 PM


Contradiction
quote:
I agree with Buz. You appear to be treating the writings as in contradiction with one another.
So where have I said they contradict each other in relation to this topic?
Just because I don't feel that they automatically support each other, doesn't mean I feel they contradict each other. Now I may not agree with what tradition or dogma states they say, but that means I disagree with tradition and dogma, not with what the author wrote.
Remember, I haven't said there is no lake of fire or final judgment.
quote:
I don't get how you can speak in terms of different writers representing different times and cultures when you're only talking about a span of a century or so, and about writers who claim to have known each other and would have been telling their experiences all along before they wrote them down.
An author has a purpose for writing what he writes.
John wrote down his vision.
I feel that the author of Matthew was writing a satire.
Mark was writing a bio.
Luke also wrote an extended bio, but claims to have investigated circulating information for his work.
A century is a very long time for human change.
Just in my very short lifetime our culture has changed considerably.
I am fascinated by this line of discussion concerning the authors, but I don't want to veer from the original topic. I don't know if there is a current topic on them or not, but if anyone responds to this post, please tie it back to the topic.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Faith, posted 05-11-2006 12:10 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2006 10:16 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 231 of 300 (311709)
05-13-2006 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Buzsaw
05-12-2006 10:16 PM


Matthew and Revelation
buzsaw writes:
Message 226
What specifically is your problem with Matt 25:41 relative to Rev 20:10? Why is it unreasonable to crossreference them in order to get the whole picture?
buzsaw writes:
Message 227
1. You allege that the torment/lake of fire is only for the devil and his angels, as per Rev 20:10.
2. You appear to have a problem with Matt where in 25:41 Jesus says in the judgement, some human folks will be cast into that same place of eternal torment "prepared for the devil and his angels."
Actually I explained that in Message 217
purpledawn writes:
Matthew is a bio about Jesus while he walked this earth telling everyone that the Kingdom of God is at hand. Judgment day was imminent. That judgment day didn't happen. Revelation is a vision given to John a considerable time after Jesus' resurrection and IMO, deals with the ultimate judgment day.
So when the author of Matthew writes about what Jesus said about the sheep and the goats and the devil and his angels, IMO, Jesus would be referring to the imminent judgment day. Even if I'm incorrect in that view, the fact is that Revelation is the final vision. It takes place after Jesus had left. Since it is supposedly a vision from Jesus, wouldn't it overrule whatever was written in Matthew?
That's why I asked: So where have I said they contradict each other in relation to this topic?
quote:
1. You allege that the torment/lake of fire is only for the devil and his angels, as per Rev 20:10.
Careful with the phrasing.
If you notice in Message 203, I didn't say that the lake of fire was only for the devil and his angels, etc.
purpledawn writes:
Re 20:10
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
When we clear out the preconceived ideas, we see that it is the devil, the beast, and the false prophet (all singular) who will be tormented "forever".
That verse does not speak of anyone else. That specific sentence states that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet (all singular) are thrown into the lake of fire. The writer's words, not mine. IOW, that sentence by itself, says nothing concerning mankind.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2006 10:16 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by jaywill, posted 05-13-2006 8:44 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 235 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2006 8:59 AM purpledawn has replied
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 05-17-2006 7:54 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 251 of 300 (312192)
05-15-2006 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Buzsaw
05-13-2006 8:59 AM


Re: Matthew and Revelation
quote:
You seem to miss my point, being that when you crossreference the Rev text with the Matthew text you come up with the same place for the devil, his angels and people.
I do understand your point, but you haven't actually addressed mine in Message 217.
How have I made a contradiction of any sort? Message 217
Matthew 25:41
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;
Revelation 20:10
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Now the beginning of the sheep and goat story in Matthew starts:
"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, ... All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another...
Earlier in Chapter 20 of Revelation we have:
...They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection....When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations...
So when does the Son of Man come in his glory? The first resurrection or after the thousand years?
IMO, these two verses do not describe the same event. If you feel that they do, please show me.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2006 8:59 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by jaywill, posted 05-15-2006 11:13 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 256 by jaywill, posted 05-15-2006 11:42 PM purpledawn has not replied
 Message 257 by Buzsaw, posted 05-15-2006 11:49 PM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 252 of 300 (312195)
05-15-2006 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by jaywill
05-13-2006 8:44 AM


Re: Matthew and Revelation
quote:
But you have to do more than that. You have to explain WHY we should think the same result does not happen to others.
I have explained my view in Message 231 and the posts it references.
Rev 20:10
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
The verse itself does not state "others."
I think it is actually your turn to explain how that verse does refer to more than what is stated.
quote:
Give me a reason why there is a "Kinder Gentlier Damnation" in Revelation 20:15.
I can't give you a reason for something I haven't stated. Where have I said anything about a kinder damnation?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by jaywill, posted 05-13-2006 8:44 AM jaywill has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024