Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Fires of Hell Have Gone Out: No Eternal Torment
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 300 (311632)
05-12-2006 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by purpledawn
05-11-2006 9:59 AM


Re: Down to Brass Tacks
PD writes:
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.
My dear, you certainly have a strange way of going at the Bible. Who cares when each NT book was written, so long as they're all within the same dispensation of God's economy? It's quite irrevelant as to establishing doctrinal perameters.
For all practical purposes, if Matthew mentions hell fire, it's as good as if every one of the gospels mentions it, if indeed the NT is Holy Spirit inspired. If you want to begin chipping away at what's acceptable and God imspired, then you might as well throw it all out as uninspired, leaving yourself as judge. God has allowed Matthew to remain unchallenged for 20 centuries. Likely if he didn't want it included it'd have been out a long time ago. I've studied the Bible daily for 60 years and I see no significant problem at all with contradictions. Any problems I've encountered are really nonessential and insignificant for establishing essential doctrine.
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 B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by purpledawn, posted 05-11-2006 9:59 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 05-13-2006 12:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 300 (311653)
05-12-2006 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by purpledawn
05-11-2006 1:16 PM


Re: Contradiction
I'd like to respond also to this question to Faith. I hope you don't mind.
PD writes:
So where have I said they contradict each other in relation to this topic?
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."
3. For you to have your cake and eat it too, so to speak, in your opinion, there's a contradition.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by purpledawn, posted 05-11-2006 1:16 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by purpledawn, posted 05-13-2006 8:27 AM Buzsaw has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 228 of 300 (311678)
05-13-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Buzsaw
05-12-2006 9:32 PM


Re: Down to Brass Tacks
buzsaw writes:
I've studied the Bible daily for 60 years and I see no significant problem at all with contradictions.
About forty years ago, a new church was being built in Winnipeg. The roofing contractor had their motto emblazoned on their trucks: "Over 150 years experience in the roofing business". They started the last row of shingles at the ridge, but when they came to the end of the roof, they were a foot and a half too low. The whole side had to be removed and redone.
The moral of the story: You can do something for 150 years and still screw it up.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2006 9:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by jaywill, posted 05-13-2006 8:40 AM ringo has not replied
 Message 234 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2006 8:50 AM ringo has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 229 of 300 (311704)
05-13-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by ringo
05-12-2006 10:52 AM


Re: Hope
Do you have any evidence for eternal torment that doesn't depend on your particular interpretation of the Revelation?
That seems an easy enough question. Yes
Do you have any evidence of me being incorrect that is not based on
1.) Favoring the synoptics over John
2.) Dismissiing Revelation as too symbolic and should be discarded
3.) Assuming that 19 centries of Bible exposition is biased.
4.) Denying the Deity of Christ
5.) Holding Old and New Testaments have nothing to do with each other.
7.) Denying Christ as the Messiah
8.) Assuming Paul corrupted the gospel of Christ and knew nothing.
etc. etc. etc ?
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-13-2006 08:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ringo, posted 05-12-2006 10:52 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 05-14-2006 1:33 PM jaywill has replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 230 of 300 (311708)
05-13-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by ringo
05-12-2006 10:52 AM


Re: Hope
I don't have much "hope" of instilling any hope in you - but anybody who reads our posts can see who's doing the twisting. I "hope" to instill some hope in them, that they can avoid eternal torment without loud professions of "Lord! Lord!"
This really is a dreadful subject for me to continue to speak of.
But I can't image why you would want to discourage people from calling on Lord for any reason.
That Christ said some who say Lord Lord would not be in the kingdom of the heavens is His business. He will be the Judge. He didn't ask you to teach people not to call Him Lord.
And what is wrong with a loud profession of "Lord Jesus" anyway?
Are you appropriating that verse to teach that Jesus is not the Lord?
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-13-2006 08:26 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-13-2006 08:27 AM
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
AdminPD
This message has been edited by AdminPD, 05-13-2006 08:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by ringo, posted 05-12-2006 10:52 AM ringo has not 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

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 232 of 300 (311713)
05-13-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by ringo
05-13-2006 12:30 AM


Re: Down to Brass Tacks
About forty years ago, a new church was being built in Winnipeg. The roofing contractor had their motto emblazoned on their trucks: "Over 150 years experience in the roofing business". They started the last row of shingles at the ridge, but when they came to the end of the roof, they were a foot and a half too low. The whole side had to be removed and redone.
The moral of the story: You can do something for 150 years and still screw it up.
How come this doesn't get the big "OFF TOPIC?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 05-13-2006 12:30 AM ringo has not replied

jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 233 of 300 (311715)
05-13-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by purpledawn
05-13-2006 8:27 AM


Re: Matthew and Revelation
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.
All well and good.
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'm all ears, seriously. Is there any reason why the result should be different for anyone whose name was not written in the book of life?
Give me a reason why there is a "Kinder Gentlier Damnation" in Revelation 20:15.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 05-13-2006 08:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by purpledawn, posted 05-13-2006 8:27 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2006 8:39 PM jaywill has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 300 (311718)
05-13-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by ringo
05-13-2006 12:30 AM


Re: Down to Brass Tacks
You make a good point, Ringo, but this roof seems to be coming out just fine in favor of Biblical harmony.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by ringo, posted 05-13-2006 12:30 AM ringo has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 300 (311719)
05-13-2006 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by purpledawn
05-13-2006 8:27 AM


Re: Matthew and Revelation
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.
Abe: I believe this is Jaywill's argument also.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 05-13-2006 09:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by purpledawn, posted 05-13-2006 8:27 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by purpledawn, posted 05-15-2006 8:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 236 of 300 (311733)
05-14-2006 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by jaywill
05-13-2006 8:09 AM


Re: Hope
jaywill writes:
Do you have any evidence of me being incorrect that is not based on
1.) Favoring the synoptics over John
I don't "favor" the synoptics over John. I just don't ignore what the synoptics say. You have to twist what Matthew said to fit your scenario.
2.) Dismissiing Revelation as too symbolic and should be discarded
I have asked you before to STOP MAKING THAT FALSE ACCUSATION.
3.) Assuming that 19 centries of Bible exposition is biased.
Pretty clearly there is bias involved, since we have a Catholic Church, several Orthodox Churches and multitudes of Protestant Churches, all with their own particular bias.
4.) Denying the Deity of Christ
Where on earth did you come up with that ludicrous false accusation?
5.) Holding Old and New Testaments have nothing to do with each other.
Where on earth did you come up with that ludicrous accusation?
I have said that every book of the Bible is independent - i.e. you can't arbitrarily choose one as the "secret answer key" to decode all the others. The books are all interrelated - they all cover some of the same topics - but it is fruitless to try to interpret any of them solely on the basis of the others.
7.) Denying Christ as the Messiah
It seems pretty clear that Jesus doesn't fit the Old Testament prophecies, but I don't see how that has anything remotely to do with this topic.
8.) Assuming Paul corrupted the gospel of Christ and knew nothing.
It's not an "assumption", it's a conclusion - and I wouldn't put it that strongly. I'd say Jesus' words trump Paul's - always.
So, if you have any evidence for eternal torment that doesn't depend on your particular interpretation of the Revelation - why don't you show it to us and keep the rest of this childish ranting to yourself?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by jaywill, posted 05-13-2006 8:09 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 05-14-2006 2:13 PM ringo has replied
 Message 241 by jaywill, posted 05-14-2006 10:31 PM ringo has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 237 of 300 (311737)
05-14-2006 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by ringo
05-14-2006 1:33 PM


Re: Hope
I have said that every book of the Bible is independent - i.e. you can't arbitrarily choose one as the "secret answer key" to decode all the others. The books are all interrelated - they all cover some of the same topics - but it is fruitless to try to interpret any of them solely on the basis of the others.
What does this mean, SOLELY on the basis of the others? The usual approach to Bible interpretation is to interpret all the books in relation to all the others. Nobody treats any of them as having some "secret answer key," where did that idea come from? {abe: They are all equally valid, all equally "God-breathed" and all modify each other, no one dominating.} The rule is simply to read any one in the context of all the others, reconciling them all with one another.
Edited by Faith, : Edit to clarify a statement where noted in the text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by ringo, posted 05-14-2006 1:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by ringo, posted 05-14-2006 3:28 PM Faith has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 238 of 300 (311762)
05-14-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Faith
05-14-2006 2:13 PM


Faith writes:
The usual approach to Bible interpretation is to interpret all the books in relation to all the others. Nobody treats any of them as having some "secret answer key," where did that idea come from?
In the context of this topic, my point is that jaywill always falls back on the Revelation to explain (away) what the other books say. I have asked him more than once to make a case for eternal torment that doesn't depend on the Revelation. If he is, in fact, interpreting all the books in relation to all the others, he should be able to make some sort of a case without reference to the Revelation at all. I have yet to see him do that.
(Since some people do not accept that the Revelation is about our future, I feel that an interpretation based on that assumption is rather weak.)

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Faith, posted 05-14-2006 2:13 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 05-14-2006 3:40 PM ringo has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 239 of 300 (311765)
05-14-2006 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ringo
05-14-2006 3:28 PM


I have asked him more than once to make a case for eternal torment that doesn't depend on the Revelation. If he is, in fact, interpreting all the books in relation to all the others, he should be able to make some sort of a case without reference to the Revelation at all. I have yet to see him do that.
I have to admit I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but if you allow interpretation of all books in relation to all others you certainly have to allow Revelation. I don't understand your excluding it. Revelation is what it says, revelation. Its purpose {abe: some of its purpose anyway} is to reveal meanings and what's behind the scenes of some things we'd otherwise not know so clearly from the rest of scripture. I don't know offhand how much evidence there is in the rest of scripture for eternal torment (although I thought quite a bit), but if it's only in Revelation then that's the source and it's completely valid.
Edited by Faith, : noted in text

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ringo, posted 05-14-2006 3:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ringo, posted 05-14-2006 3:29 PM Faith has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 240 of 300 (311763)
05-14-2006 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Faith
05-14-2006 3:40 PM


Faith writes:
... if you allow interpretation of all books in relation to all others you certainly have to allow Revelation. I don't understand your excluding it.
How many times do I have to say it? I am not excluding the Revelation. I am asking for evidence of eternal torment that doesn't depend on a particular interpretation of the Revelation.
If there is so much of it, jaywill (or anybody) should have no problem producing some of it.
My position is simple and clear: Matthew 25 says that there is hope for everybody, based on their actions, not on their profession of faith. Even for the goats, the fire may be everlasting, but the logs on the fire are not.
The only response that I have heard is that the Revelation says something different. What I am asking is: why does the Revelation trump Matthew?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Faith, posted 05-14-2006 3:40 PM Faith 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