U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Germany
1,647 posts, read 1,706,819 times
Reputation: 842

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
My new favorite scripture when it comes to UR types.

Matt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Let's see how the UR types redefine the word "destroy".
do you believe in annihilation? if not, how can "destroy" mean "to live immortally in horrible torment forevermore"?

if destruction is not annihilation then there is no reason to suppose it means an irreversible doom

but I agree with you, this verse is an argument against universalism as much as it is an argument against everlasting torment, as it is the no.1 proof verse of the annihilationist's doctrine

ironically it is a verse where eternal tormentists and universalists agree, that "destroy" needn't mean annihilation
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:16 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by svenM View Post
do you believe in annihilation? if not, how can "destroy" mean "to live immortally in horrible torment forevermore"?

if destruction is not annihilation then there is no reason to suppose it means an irreversible doom

but I agree with you, this verse is an argument against universalism as much as it is an argument against everlasting torment, as it is the no.1 proof verse of the annihilationist's doctrine

ironically it is a verse where eternal tormentists and universalists agree, that "destroy" needn't mean annihilation
I think the problem in interpretation is the false idea of the three parts of man... Body, soul, and spirit... Genesis says Body + Spirit = Soul but most think of the soul as our being or eternal part.

So what does soul really mean? Breath, life, mind, heart... The whole person.

Same as when you read "seven souls died in the fire" the soul is another word for life.

Still that verse doesn't make a whole lotta sense.. IMO but I think that since criminals were burned in the Valley of Hinnom, then it is your reputation as well as your body that is destroyed. To the Jews of that time their reputation was very important... even after death as it was reflected on their family.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
7,903 posts, read 8,476,106 times
Reputation: 11583
Quote:
Originally Posted by svenM View Post
do you believe in annihilation? if not, how can "destroy" mean "to live immortally in horrible torment forevermore"?

if destruction is not annihilation then there is no reason to suppose it means an irreversible doom

but I agree with you, this verse is an argument against universalism as much as it is an argument against everlasting torment, as it is the no.1 proof verse of the annihilationist's doctrine

ironically it is a verse where eternal tormentists and universalists agree, that "destroy" needn't mean annihilation
Except for one detail. We are body, soul and spirit. The spirit is not destroyed. This paints a haunting picture-one becomes a disemboweled spirit in hell? You as a person body and soul are destroyed, but your spirit isn't.

When person in Christ dies their soul and spirit survives. You are still a person sans physical body.

Interesting thought?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 8,384,960 times
Reputation: 1690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
Except for one detail. We are body, soul and spirit. The spirit is not destroyed. This paints a haunting picture-one becomes a disemboweled spirit in hell? You as a person body and soul are destroyed, but your spirit isn't.

When person in Christ dies their soul and spirit survives. You are still a person sans physical body.

Interesting thought?
See my previous post... Man is not triune.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
7,903 posts, read 8,476,106 times
Reputation: 11583
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
See my previous post... Man is not triune.
OK, lets discuss in a fresh thread.


http://www.city-data.com/forum/14557401-post1.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 11:17 AM
 
702 posts, read 811,881 times
Reputation: 87
This is long, but since the attacks on the biblical doctrine of eternal punishment continue on this board, I feel the need to post it...

One of the clearest proofs of eternal punishment is found in the words of Jesus Himself about Judas Iscariot:

“The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” (Matthew 26:24, NASB)

To say that it would have been good for Judas if he had not been born is a very strong statement. As such, the “woe” that man faced must have been quite horrific. Thus, this statement logically militates against two popular ideas held by those who oppose the doctrine of eternal punishment: annihilation and future remedial punishment. Jesus’ words rule out the idea of annihilation because that is the very state of nonexistence that he says would have been good for Judas. His words prevent the idea of future remedial punishment because having never been born could not be regarded as better than a remedial chastening that would eventually lead to eternal blessedness. Since Judas Iscariot’s fate cannot be annihilation or remedial punishment, it must be eternal punishment.

One objection that has been raised is that when Jesus said, "good for him," the "him" was referring to his own person, so that we would have: "It would have been good for Jesus if that man had not been born." According to this view, Christ meant that if Judas had never been born, he (Christ) would not have had to endure the anguish in Gethsemane and the subsequent agonies of the crucifixion.

Let’s see how the pronoun “him” is used in the Greek:

ὁ μὲν υἱὸς τοῦἀνθρώπου ὑπάγει καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ οὐαὶ δὲ τῷἀνθρώπῳἐκείνῳ δι' οὗὁ υἱὸς τοῦἀνθρώπου παραδίδοται· καλὸν ἦν ατ εἰ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη ὁἄνθρωπος ἐκεῖνος

The boldfaced word in the Greek above is the pronoun "him." This third person masculine pronoun is in the dative singular case. Being in the dative case, it means “for him” or “to him.” Concerning that last part of the verse, this is a more literal translation, though the word order is awkward: "Good was for him if not was born that man."

Those who say that Christ was speaking about what was good for himself point to this pronoun, claiming that its antecedent could be Christ. The mere use of the pronoun, however, is not enough to prove that Christ meant this. We must not content ourselves with what the text could say but rather what it does say. In order to determine this, when the Greek text is not conclusive, we need to examine both the immediate and broad contexts. When we do, we will clearly see two things: 1) This interpretation goes against the logical flow of the passage (immediate context), and 2) this interpretation has Christ saying something about himself that is highly inconsistent with statements he made of himself in other places in the New Testament (broad context).

First, regarding the immediate context, the passage in the NASB in full reads as follows:

20Now when evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the twelve disciples.
21As they were eating, He said, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me."
22Being deeply grieved, they each one began to say to Him, "Surely not I, Lord?"
23And He answered, "He who dipped his hand with Me in the bowl is the one who will betray Me.
24"The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born."
25And Judas, who was betraying Him, said, "Surely it is not I, Rabbi?" Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself."

The thrust of this passage is the betrayal that Christ was to face and its consequences for the betrayer. That is the point of the passage. What might have been good for Christ is not in consideration in this text. Therefore, to insist that it is, is to argue from silence. Moreover, to claim this is to say that Christ shifted gears in the middle of his talk, first speaking of the woe that would come to Judas, then abruptly changing the subject to speak of what was good for himself, and then abruptly switching back to speak of Judas. This goes against the logical flow of the text. The statement, “It would have been good for that man if he had not been born,” follows immediately upon the heels of the previous one, “woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!” The “woe” is described and expanded upon in the very next sentence. Therefore, the idea that Christ was referring to himself are attempting to force an interpretation on the text that does not belong there. Only someone who first wants the passage to say this would interpret it this way.

Secondly, looking at the broader context of the Bible, this interpretation cannot stand because it would not have mattered to Christ whether Judas was nonexistent or not, since he would have had to endure the cross no matter what. It was God's will that this should happen. Thus, even if Judas had never been born, God would have definitely used some other means to bring Christ to the anguish and suffering of the cross. The agonies that Christ faced were inevitable, and he knew it well. He knew that the very reason for his coming into the world was to give up his life for sinful people:

"The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28, NASB)

In light of this, he would not have said that Judas' nonexistence would have been good for his own sake. It would be like a condemned criminal on his way to the electric chair, saying, “It would be good for me if that electric chair did not exist.” This would be a ridiculous statement because even if the governing authorities didn’t have the electric chair, they would carry out his death sentence in some other way. The man is doomed to die, and so he will die no matter what. So it was with Christ: Even if Judas had never been born, God would have sovereignly created some other sure means whereby Christ should be betrayed.

The only sensible interpretation is that Judas' nonexistence would have been good for Judas, and that because of the woe that Christ referred to earlier in the same sentence.

Speaking of this “woe,” some have suggested that it referred merely to Judas’ inner anguish over the judgment he would face, or perhaps some other subjective anguish because of his betrayal of the Lord. But no matter how intense such inner suffering might be, it could never make nonexistence good for him if he would one day be saved after all. Even if he had to face the most horrible subjective anguish or future judgment before reaching salvation, he would still end up one day in eternal blessedness. Having never been born, however, would mean that he would miss out on this everlasting blessedness, eternal glory, eternal fellowship with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and all the other myriad, indescribable joys of being in heaven forever. Therefore, in this view nonexistence could not have been good for him.

In addition, the grammar of the passage demands that the woe be interpreted as objective. The phrase, “but woe to that man” is “οὐαὶ δὲ τνθρώπ ἐκείνῳ.” The phrase, “the man,” which is boldfaced above, is in the singular dative, indicating not what is inside the man but rather what will be to that man. It is a woe that will happen to him, not in him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 11:28 AM
 
957 posts, read 715,639 times
Reputation: 392
Quote:
You and I can never imagine all the depths of hell. Shut out from us by a black veil of
darkness, we cannot tell the horrors of that dismal dungeon of lost souls. Happily, the
wailings of the damned have never startled us, for a thousand tempests were but a
maiden’s whisper, compared with one wail of a damned spirit. It is not possible for us
to see the tortures of those souls who dwell eternally within an anguish that knows
no alleviation. These eyes would become sightless balls of darkness, if they were
permitted for an instant to look into that ghastly shrine of torment. Hell is horrible,
for we may say of it, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the
heart of man to conceive the horrors which God hath prepared for them that hate
him.
The gospel of fear once again.

"Happily, the wailings of the damned have never startled us....." ......happily he says.

Hard to phantom how so many ET'ers can shrug off souls wailing in anguish for all of eternity.

Peer over the side of heaven into the dark abyss and think "Must suck to be you. Glad its you and not me"



Last edited by Zero 7; 06-10-2010 at 12:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 11:48 AM
 
5,925 posts, read 5,681,725 times
Reputation: 639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy View Post
This is long, but since the attacks on the biblical doctrine of eternal punishment continue on this board, I feel the need to post it...


How dare someone attack the doctrine of eternal punishment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Germany
1,647 posts, read 1,706,819 times
Reputation: 842
Quote:
Thus, even if Judas had never been born, God would have definitely used some other means to bring Christ to the anguish and suffering of the cross. The agonies that Christ faced were inevitable, and he knew it well.
it is one thing to be killed, it is another thing to be betrayed by a close friend, think about this

Quote:
We must not content ourselves with what the text could say but rather what it does say. In order to determine this, when the Greek text is not conclusive, we need to examine both the immediate and broad contexts.
if the Greek text is not conclusive, it could say many things; if the broad context of the bible teaches universalism as it is the conviction and faith of many - this verse has to be interpreted in light of this; the universalist interpretation is in no opposition to any biblical doctrine so what does give you the certainty to say that your interpretation is correct only becaused it is based on the bias the bible would teach everlasting torment?
Quote:
One of the clearest proofs of eternal punishment is found in the words of Jesus Himself about Judas Iscariot
as by your own words the Greek text is not conclusive, how can it be a proof at all? you refute yourself by your own words, all you have is an ambiguous verse as in any other instance that is claimed to support everlasting torment, verses like 1Tim. 4:10 e.g. are much less ambiguous

Quote:
but most think of the soul as our being or eternal part
this is due to Platonism like the idea of "eternity" itself

Quote:
This paints a haunting picture-one becomes a disemboweled spirit in hell?
nowhere in the bible is the spirit of man connected with "hell", 'the spirit will return to God who gave it' (Eccl. 12:7), this does however not mean that the spirit itself is a conscious being; 'His (i.e. man) spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day (i.e. the day of death) his thoughts perish' (Psalm 146:4).

Last edited by svenM; 06-10-2010 at 12:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2010, 12:39 PM
 
702 posts, read 811,881 times
Reputation: 87
Quote:
as by your own words the Greek text is not conclusive, how can it be a proof at all?
It's clear what I meant: That one word in the Greek text was inconclusive--not the whole passage.

God's word has spoken plainly and irrefutably: There will be a hell of conscious, everlasting torment. It is our responsibility to submit to what the inspired text says, regardless of whether we find it to be unpleasant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top