Posted on 10/09/2017 11:47:22 PM PDT by Sontagged
In July 1980, Bryan Melvin drank cholera-tainted water and died.
He was transported to Hell where he saw many people being tormented for their sins, including someone he identified as Hitler.
A Land Unknown: Hell's Dominion (Bryan Melvin's Book) on Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Back-Bryan-Melvin/dp/B001T9O68S http://www.10LoveCommandments.com
I did change and accepted Jesus some months later.
Traditionalists argue that since eternal (αἰώνιος, aionios) is used in both clauses, the duration of the punishment for the damned must endure as long as the duration of the life for the redeemed. And most conditionalists do not disagree! If the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), such that the damned will die and never live again, then the duration of the punishment surely is every bit as eternal. It is not the punishing itself that is eternal, a process that never ends. It is the punishment that is eternal, the final death sentence which is permanent (i.e., forever).
When eternal describes a so-called “noun of action” in the New Testament—that is, the noun corresponding to a verb (punishment versus punish)—it frequently is the verb’s outcome, not its process, whose duration is everlasting. Eternal judgment refers to the everlasting outcome of a finite process of judging (Hebrews 6:2). Eternal salvation and eternal redemption refer to the everlasting outcome of a finite process of saving and redeeming (Hebrews 5:9, 9:12). Eternal sin refers to a sin the consequences of which are eternal (Mark 3:29, unless its original reading is “eternal judgment,” in which case it is once again the everlasting outcome of a finite process of judging). Likewise eternal punishment may refer to the everlasting outcome of a finite process of punishing.
Of course, some conditionalists argue that αἰώνιος is not properly translated "eternal" in the first place. Rather, they make a case for understanding it as having a qualitative meaning, rather than a quantitative one. In their view, αἰώνιος life does not inherently communicate “everlasting” life in the sense of forever ongoing—although they believe that that teaching can be found elsewhere—but rather a “kind” of life, one corresponding to the age to come. In other words, eternal might refer to the quality of the age in which the life is lived, that is “in the age of, and with the qualities of, eternity”—not merely a temporal quantity. This explanation would also track with the idea that the eternal fire of Jude did not continue to burn in Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, but was of an eternal nature and origin. Likewise αἰώνιος punishment may refer to the punishment corresponding to the age to come, not one of unending duration.
From here: http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/
Where do you think Helen Thomas is?
According to the traditional view, this eternal destruction Paul speaks of militates against conditionalism. At best there would be no point, it is argued, in calling annihilation eternal; the word destruction would be sufficient, making the qualifier superfluous. At worst the presence of the qualifier means the destruction must last forever, an eternal destroying. The wicked are also said to experience this “away from” (ESV) or while “shut out from” (NIV) the presence of the Lord.
As a matter of fact, it makes perfect sense for Paul to call the destruction awaiting the resurrected wicked eternal. Although in this life they die only to face resurrection to judgment, thereafter they are destroyed forever, sentenced to the second death which is eternal. And the phrase “shut out from” (NIV) does not appear in the original Greek; even the translation “away from” (ESV) is dubious. But if we were to accept that meaning, all it would mean is that the destruction takes place away from the presence of God. The unsaved will be sent away from God’s presence, thrown into a furnace of fire where they will be burned up (Matthew 13:40-42).
Paul said in the preceding verses that Jesus will be revealed “in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance"—a combination of terms found elsewhere only in Isaiah 66:15. This chapter of Isaiah, and the book as a whole, ends with the wicked having been reduced to lifeless, smoldering, maggot-ridden corpses. This is then the eternal destruction of which Paul speaks, being destroyed, rendered lifeless, never to live again.
From Here: http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/
Was afraid to ask the question. LOL
Most people read their thinking into Scripture when they study it. God provides a mechanism by which He guides our thinking when we remain in fellowship with Him, in our study, to understand the Word and sanctify our mentality, specifically our soul.
For example.
If somebody reads the word ‘death’, and in a worldly fashion identifies this with existential philosophy, thinking death just means when the biological body ceases to function and we no longer exist,...then that thinking is NOT thinling the Word of God. The reader then slips out of fellowship with God, by ‘reading into’ Scripture. This is a type of sin of arrogance.
She's possibly part of an atheistic Beauty Parlor proprietor's punishment in the Torments. 0;^0
Mark 9:43
43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.
FWIW, that is a poor translation. The strongs words there are 762 and 4442. The problem is that 762 is translated in strongs as unquenchable/unquenched, and 4442 is tranlated as fire.
So whoever translated your quote into english translated “unquenchable/unquenched fire” into “fire never goes out.”
An unquenchable fire may or may not go out, but it can not be “put out”. Kinda like a nuclear reaction or a sun. It is “unquenchable” but eventualy goes out on its own. The point being that you can do nothing about it and its effect. And anyone reading that book or listening to His words knows what throwing something into an unquenchable fire like the sun will do to it. That is why the words were used.
The phrase eternal fire evokes in the mind of the traditionalist a picture of the unsaved burning and suffering in flames for all eternity. And it is assumed that this eternal fire, prepared for the demons, is the same lake of tormenting fire found in the symbolic imagery of Revelation 20. But the text indicates that it is the fire which is eternal, not those thrown into it. And the use of the phrase elsewhere indicates that eternal fire utterly destroys and reduces to lifeless remains.
Jesus uses the phrase elsewhere, in Matthew 18:8, and his admonition there, also recorded in Matthew 5:30 and Mark 9:43, likens final punishment to Gehenna, a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew “valley of [the sons of] Hinnom,” which was once a place where idol worshippers burned up children as sacrifices to their gods. But Jeremiah 7:32-33 says that Gehenna would become “the Valley of Slaughter . . . And the dead bodies of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the beasts of the earth, and none will frighten them away.” Isaiah 30 speaks of God’s fiery vengeance upon Gehenna, likening it to a funeral pyre, which is a pile of wood for burning up corpses.
Another place the phrase eternal fire is used is in Jude 7, where Jude writes that Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities “serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” Jude explicitly states that the cities suffered the punishment of eternal fire, as many theologians admit. No wonder the parallel in 2 Peter 2:6 refers to their having been reduced to ashes.
The punishment of eternal fire is therefore not suffering for eternity as everlasting fuel for its flames. Rather, it is the punishment of being utterly destroyed, completely burned up, reduced to nothing but lifeless corpses and ashes by a fire that is eternal insofar as it cannot be quenched—no mere earthly fire but an eternal fire from God.
From here: http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/
Revelation 19:20
20 But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur.
Matthew 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.
This one actually supports annihilation. Notice it clearly points out that whoever it is talking about (Personally, I believe it is God) can destroy both the body and soul, which is exactly what I think will happen to those who have not received eternal life.
This one is actually used as a proof text for Conditional Immortality, not eternal conscious torment.
My reply to the “don’t worry you don’t exist.....” “But while I can doubt everything my senses report to my consciousness, I can not doubt that part of me that does the doubting....if I am told I don’t exist, I can’t deny that part of me that has heard “don’t worry, you don’t exist” (COGITO ERGO SUM).
It is to that part of our being that Proverbs speaks “Guard the heart for out of it flows the issues of life”
Be sure you can access a higher knowledge of reality in judging sanity of the divine!
If somebody reads the word ‘death’, and in a worldly fashion identifies this with existential philosophy, thinking death just means when the biological body ceases to function and we no longer exist,...then that thinking is NOT thinling the Word of God. The reader then slips out of fellowship with God, by ‘reading into’ Scripture. This is a type of sin of arrogance.
For example, using the english word “death” again, it can mean things that don’t really mean “death of a living organizm”, and some will glom on to those other meanings to try to prove that it doesn’t really mean what a person would normally interpret the word “death” to mean. That is when one starts getting in trouble with interpretations.
An example: When the bible says, “...and likewise also the males, having left the natural use of the female, were inflamed by their lust for one another, males with males, committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.” in Romans 1:27, homosexuals interpret to say it is condemning “heterosexual” men who commit homosexual acts, but it is not talking about homosexual men.
However, the difference there is that they are, in fact, mincing words. They are not altering the definition of words.
Likewise, when the fate of the lost is repeatedly described as perish, death, die or destroyed, and one tries to say it doesn’t really mean what those words typically mean, it is up to the listener/reader to look for reasons to support something other than the plain meaning. And this support must come from two places: Scripture and the personality of God as taught in scripture and through prayer.
This speaks to the primary reason I became an annihilationist: The more I familiarized myself with His personality as portrayed in the bible, the less the ECT teaching matched His personality and his dealing with those who chose not to listen to Him or defied Him. And the more CI actually fit with His personality as I was seeing it in His word.
But that is not enough. When I realized scripture actually supports that viewpoint more than any other, I became a solid convert.
I confess that it is fascinating to me that, when arguing Christianity with strong “anti-Christians”, when they find out I’m an annihilationist, it becomes their quest to “proove” that God will send all non-believers to ECT. Their entire preaching on the absurdity of God DEPENDS on that being true, otherwise their case collapses.
And keep in mind that God communicates in His word through human language. We need to understand the meaning of that language and apply those DICTIONARY meanings to every word we see in the bible. And when something seems confusing, it is best to go directly to the lexicon.
All of it prayerfully, of course. :-)
“Notably, due to the hints of reincarnation”....
“From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come.’” Matthew 11:13-14
Was John reincarnated? How could he be since Elijah was taken up alive into heaven.
So what do feel about the sin in your own soul and when are you sure you are not projecting your own feelings about yourself onto someone else? You are saying things about yourself even the apostles never would dare say about themselves...
I believe most Christians believe that God considers your Uncle Bob’s sins to be just as foul as Adolf’s. His good deeds count for nothing. Therefore, he deserves the exact same punishment.
Thank you and I appreciate the referral.
But it hits a little to close to home as I dont know what the future holds
I wake up sometimes not knowing whether it’s night or day (and sun or no sun doesn’t matter) and where I am for a few minutes.
I fear the day when it won’t be a few minutes.
I know what it means to MORMONs!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.