Heaven & Hell Vs Annihilation

[CuriousBob]

Jlay,Thanks for trying to understand. But I don't understand how you don't understand. The suggestion that you don't understand or the suggestion that my conclusion doesn't make any sense is a suggestion that I don't understand or that doesn't make any sense to me.

I hardly think God is cruel simply because He doesn't prescribe to your preferences.

I am trying hard not to give anyone the impression that God must prescribe to my preferences. Rather, I am trying hard to see the consistency in all of God's most emphatic, pressing, or pertinent suggestions or statements of fact, a consistency that either inspires me to follow Him or discourages me from following Him, with the Bible as my guide, and I am consistently failing to see that consistency.

I see consistency in the "Golden Rule" and all the passages of God's Word that encourage me to follow it. I also see consistency in the "Eye for an eye" principle and all the passages that encourage me to follow it.

But I don't see consistency in any passage that discourages me from considering the "Golden Rule" or "Eye for an eye" principle to be valid.

I might say, I don't see how a God who brings those rules or principles to my attention can be consistent with Himself in expecting me to agree with them when it is clear that they don't apply to Him when He deals with those who do obviously harmless and passive things like refusing to believe in something or someone that He would prefer them to believe in.

I don't see anything that is consistent with that God if the same God who brought those principles to our attention also tells us that He is not going to treat us as He would like us to treat each other or anyone else but is going to treat us contrary to the ways in which He clearly tells us to treat each other.

Is a God who causes men and women to agonize for eternity for perfectly harmless crimes (such as lying to protect oneself from potential harm, mutually consented-to adultery or fornication, simple rejection of a statement or proposal from someone, etc.) consistent with a God who tells us to treat others as we would like for others to treat us or even consistent with a God who tells us to render an eye for an eye unto those who would attempt to harm us or our property without any provocation whatsoever from us?

There is one humongous stumbling block in your line of thinking.

It is the person of Jesus.

How so?

I consider Him, as He is portrayed in the Bible, to be the most harmless of men. I consider Him to be a far better example of respectable behavior than anyone else I know of or can think of. If anyone can be trusted to answer my questions directly, I am sure He is it. I must admit that I would prefer Him to answer me directly rather than through other men (who have a strong tendency to deceive me or say things that turn out to be half-truths and outright lies).

He walked in our shoes.

He faced the same pains, frustrations, and temptations that we endure in this flesh suit, and yet He was without blemish.

I must admit that I am not as convinced of this as I'd like to be, because I would like to know how whichever NT writer wrote that about Him knew it, since I am sure He, like all men, may have been absolutely alone many times and no one was there to see what He did or didn't do and since no one but He and His Father knew what He was thinking until He spoke.

He refused His anesthesia when the gall wine was offered.

Are you suggesting that God wants me to refuse anesthesia when it comes to eternal agony, or are you suggesting that, when it comes to eternal agony, God is unwilling to provide or allow anesthesia, even though He might allow me to accept it when undergoing an operation or when enduring a painful existence in this life? if so, how can I interpret that as a deed of kindness or justice and not a deed of cruelty, especially if my crime had nothing to do with harming others?

Please explain to me why you interpret Jesus' refusal of the gall wine as His refusal of anesthesia when, in fact, it was offered Him for the mere purpose of quenching His thirst. How is quenching one's thirst equal to providing one with anesthesia?

Also, please explain how His mere 1 to 36 hours of agony on the tree, cross, or whatever you prefer to call it, could be the equivalent of the eternal agony of any man or number of men.

[jlay]

I see consistency in the "Golden Rule" and all the passages of God's Word that encourage me to follow it. I also see consistency in the "Eye for an eye" principle and all the passages that encourage me to follow it.

God is not in need of us. We have nothing to offer Him as He lacks nothing. Doing unto others is relational for people. OTHERS being the operative word.

must admit that I am not as convinced of this as I'd like to be, because I would like to know how whichever NT writer wrote that about Him knew it, since I am sure He, like all men, may have been absolutely alone many times and no one was there to see what He did or didn't do and since no one but He and His Father knew what He was thinking until He spoke.

Let's take John 14 as an example. Now keep in mind that you said that Jesus as portrayed and communicated by the NT writers is the most remarkable man. So, if the NT writers can't be trusted, then can you trust your vision of Jesus?
John 14:26, Jesus says, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Now, this is either true, or the book of John, the centerpiece of the NT, is a lie, faith in Christ is a lie, and you are dead in your trespasses, or worm food. If it is true then Jesus explained to us exactly how HIStory would be told throught the NT writers.

Please explain to me why you interpret Jesus' refusal of the gall wine as His refusal of anesthesia when, in fact, it was offered Him for the mere purpose of quenching His thirst. How is quenching one's thirst equal to providing one with anesthesia?

He refused the gall because of its narcotic effects. Would he have drank if it were only water? I would think yes.

Also, please explain how His mere 1 to 36 hours of agony on the tree, cross, or whatever you prefer to call it, could be the equivalent of the eternal agony of any man or number of men.

WORTHY is the Lamb. Jesus is without any blemish. He was perfect. His blood that was spilled was perfect. No amount of your own suffering can equal the sacrifice of Christ. His perfection and worth was so great that it can cover the sins of the world. Anyone, who calls on the name of the Lord WILL be saved. Murderers, theives, rapists, liars, the envious. Anyone means anyone. If you don't understand this, then you have failed to grasp a fundemental tenet of the Christian faith. Everything in the old testament points to the cross and the ONE who would be a worthy sacrifice to satisfy the justice of God and SAVE His sheep.
If there were one iota of possibility that a person could pay off their own sin debt with temporary suffering or penance of any kind, then Jesus would not have to of died.

Are you suggesting that God wants me to refuse anesthesia when it comes to eternal agony, or are you suggesting that, when it comes to eternal agony, God is unwilling to provide or allow anesthesia, even though He might allow me to accept it when undergoing an operation or when enduring a painful existence in this life?

I just don't understand this anethesia kick you are on. It makes zero sense to me. Surgeries were performed without any anethesia for centuries, but what does that have to do with eternal justice, and God's judgments? I don't see it.

[B. W.]

Jlay, Zoegirl, and B.W.,What you have pointed out is all fine and dandy and I wouldn't have a problem with it, provided that men possessed essential immortality (that is, the same kind of immortality that God alone possesses) and especially provided that general anesthesia against the consciousness of pain were impossible for men to administer unto one another.

But I do have a problem with it and a most serious intellectual (logical, sound, rational, or sane) one at that, primarily because man does not possess essential immortality and primarily because general anesthesia is possible for men and infinitely more possible for God to administer unto men.

And the following words may or may not make that problem clearer to you than it already is:

"I would have to become likened unto "a house divided against itself" if I were to maintain that God, who created mortal man, loves all of mankind while at the same time he acts like a typical unloving, careless, selfish, cruel, calloused, or cold-hearted man when He clearly demonstrates in His own words a total and calloused unwillingness to eternally anesthetize the mortal men that go against His will, despite the fact that He created mankind to do as he pleased (even if what he pleased was not something that God would have done if He were in man's shoes, so-to-speak) and despite the fact that man never did possess essential immortality."

Essentially, that is what I started the topic with, keep coming back to, or emphasizing. But you keep missing it altogether.

What more can I do to help you to understand my problem?

I thought I was being clear. But, apparently I am not. So, naturally, I am frustrated and at a loss as to how to get you to see my problem.

First, CuriousBob -

How do you define essential immortality?

Secondly, what does sin effect?

Third question - Did God forsake man or did man forsake God?

Until you can answer these - we cannot answer you on the same plain as we may differ on interpretations. Any different interpretations may only serve to go around in circles. Therefore, we need to know what you mean so we can help answer your inquiry.
-
-
-

[CuriousBob]

Jlay,

God is not in need of us. We have nothing to offer Him as He lacks nothing. Doing unto others is relational for people. OTHERS being the operative word.

So? What are you saying? Are you suggesting that God, through Jesus, through men, or in His dealings with men, is not "relational for people"? Are you suggesting that God does not relate to people like people do? If so or if He wasn't "relational for people", then what was he when He was talking with Moses face to face or Samuel (audibly) or Abraham (through 3 angels) or Jacob (as the angel of the Lord)...? What are you saying and how does that address my problem with consistency?

So, if the NT writers can't be trusted, then can you trust your vision of Jesus?

What would you say if I answered "That depends on whether or not my vision is more consistent with itself and reality than the NT writers happen to be. If it is, then I would say yes. If it isn't then I would say no."?

John 14:26, Jesus says, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Now, this is either true, or the book of John, the centerpiece of the NT, is a lie, faith in Christ is a lie, and you are dead in your trespasses, or worm food. If it is true then Jesus explained to us exactly how HIStory would be told throught the NT writers.

How would you go about convincing me that that passage is directed to me when it seems obvious that it is directed to the first century's disciples or since nothing in that passage suggests that the Holy Spirit is going to bring all of Jesus' sayings to my mind, though I never heard Him say them, since I wasn't with Him then when He was on earth and dwelling in the flesh among men? It may be true for those disciples but not for me. I never would consider it to be a lie because I am convinced that Jesus walked in the flesh as a man, died as a man, rose from the dead as a man (i.e., the second Adam), and ascended into the heavens before more than 500 eyewitnesses as a man.

He refused the gall because of its narcotic effects. Would he have drank if it were only water? I would think yes.

To support that claim, can you give me a reference that I can look up without having to buy any new books? For example, can you give me a link to an article that supports it?

WORTHY is the Lamb. Jesus is without any blemish. He was perfect. His blood that was spilled was perfect. No amount of your own suffering can equal the sacrifice of Christ. His perfection and worth was so great that it can cover the sins of the world. Anyone, who calls on the name of the Lord WILL be saved. Murderers, theives, rapists, liars, the envious. Anyone means anyone. If you don't understand this, then you have failed to grasp a fundemental tenet of the Christian faith. Everything in the old testament points to the cross and the ONE who would be a worthy sacrifice to satisfy the justice of God and SAVE His sheep.
If there were one iota of possibility that a person could pay off their own sin debt with temporary suffering or penance of any kind, then Jesus would not have to of died.

That sounds more like a statement of dogma than an explanation to me. It certainly doesn't seem to fare any better than an explanation like, "Well! That's just the way it is and if you don't like it, then you'd better learn to live with it or skidaddle out o' here."

I just don't understand this anethesia kick you are on. It makes zero sense to me. Surgeries were performed without any anethesia for centuries, but what does that have to do with eternal justice, and God's judgments? I don't see it.

It seems as if repeating myself is not helping you to understand. But, maybe if i put it this way you will understand:

It would be better for one to have never been born or it would be better for one to remain unconscious of everything throughout eternity than it could ever be to remain in conscious agony, day and night, forever and ever.

General anesthesia can induce unconsciousness of everything within and without a man. Men can use this on one another to keep one another from experiencing unbearable pain. And God can do the same and much more as He can make it last forever and ever and ever. But He (whether we refer to Him as the Holy Spirit, Wisdom, or Justice is beside the point) chooses to brush it aside and keep the vast majority of men in eternal agony and for His own purposes or reasons.

Matthew 26:24 even suggests that God thinks it would have been better if some people who would be destined to be miserable for eternity had never been born. Wesley quotes Matthew 26:24 and comments on it here:

The Son of man goeth through sufferings to glory, as it is written of him - Yet this is no excuse for him that betrayeth him: miserable will that man be: it had been good for that man if he had not been born - May not the same be said of every man that finally perishes? But who can reconcile this, if it were true of Judas alone, with the doctrine of universal salvation?

It is just as possible for God to forever obliterate someone's consciousness as it is to bring it into existence and sustain it forever.

I fail to see how this makes God appear to really care for His creatures.

B.W.,

How do you define essential immortality?

I am going to let Dr. Robert A. Morey do that for me, since his book is where I first learned of it. I am going to quote from his book, Death and the Afterlife, copyright 1984, page 94:

When someone asks us if we believe in "the immortality of the soul," we respond by asking them to define their words because what they mean by "the immortality of the soul" will determine our answer.

Some are thinking of "essential immortality," which refers to a life having neither begninning nor end. According to the Bible, only God has essential immortality as an attribute of His being (1 Tim. 6:16). Since man begins at conception and does not come from eternity, he does not have essential immortality. Only God is from eternity to eternity (Ps. 90:1, 2).

Other people have in mind the Greek idea of the preexistence of the soul or the Eastern ideas of transmigration or reincarnation. The Bible is clearly against such ideas. Man does not preexist his conception in the womb, and neither does he go through an endless cycle of rebirths. Since we have already dealt with these subjects in Reincarnation and Christianity (Bethany House Pub., 1980), no further comment will be made on these subjects.

Others may be thinking of "natural immortality," which views man as an autonomous and independent immortal being through some kind of innate power. This also is erroneous, because man is always and absolutely dependent upon the Creator for this life as well as the next life. Man should never be viewed as independent or autonomous. Life in this world and in the next must always be viewed as a gift from God...

I hope that helps, B.W.

Secondly, what does sin effect?

If what you mean is, "What effect did sin have upon mankind, through the first Adam?" I would have to say, it had the effect of: ripping man apart (in spirit, soul, and body); of preventing man from living forever in body, soul and spirit in paradise; of seperating man from his creator; or of severing the ties or intimate relationship he had with his creator.

Third question - Did God forsake man or did man forsake God?

Man sinned against God. I can see how one might take that to mean man forsook God. But, in a very real sense, I think God forsook man.

Until you can answer these - we cannot answer you on the same plain as we may differ on interpretations. Any different interpretations may only serve to go around in circles. Therefore, we need to know what you mean so we can help answer your inquiry.

If you think that will help, then I am more than happy to comply. I certainly do agree with the suggestion that, before any meaningful discussion can take place, it will be necessary to begin to define our terms at some point or other.

[B. W.]

How do you define essential immortality?

I am going to let Dr. Robert A. Morey do that for me, since his book is where I first learned of it. I am going to quote from his book, Death and the Afterlife, copyright 1984, page 94:When someone asks us if we believe in "the immortality of the soul," we respond by asking them to define their words because what they mean by "the immortality of the soul" will determine our answer.

Some are thinking of "essential immortality," which refers to a life having neither beginning nor end. According to the Bible, only God has essential immortality as an attribute of His being (1 Tim. 6:16). Since man begins at conception and does not come from eternity, he does not have essential immortality. Only God is from eternity to eternity (Ps. 90:1, 2).

Other people have in mind the Greek idea of the preexistence of the soul or the Eastern ideas of transmigration or reincarnation. The Bible is clearly against such ideas. Man does not preexist his conception in the womb, and neither does he go through an endless cycle of rebirths. Since we have already dealt with these subjects in Reincarnation and Christianity (Bethany House Pub., 1980), no further comment will be made on these subjects.

Others may be thinking of "natural immortality," which views man as an autonomous and independent immortal being through some kind of innate power. This also is erroneous, because man is always and absolutely dependent upon the Creator for this life as well as the next life. Man should never be viewed as independent or autonomous. Life in this world and in the next must always be viewed as a gift from God…I hope that helps, B.W.

Response: Orthodox Christianity does not teach Plato's immortality of the soul as erroneously asserted by anti-Christian Orthodox opponents. Plato's concept states basically that souls pre-existed and so happen to be looking for a body. It is akin to reincarnation. The bible does not teach this.

Orthodox Christian Doctrine knows that all souls have a definite beginning and are not reincarnated. It is because a Sovereign God sanctions souls to be immortal is why they are and not because souls have achieved some semi-independent standing. It is because God in his sovereign will, promises, word, sanctions souls to be immortal is why they are as that is God how God originally designed humanity.

It is because of God's Holy Character and His ability to be all that He is that he placed eternity in the heart of humanity and remains faithful to his own word, plans, goals is why humanity enters the world through birth with what is termed as “an immortal soul.” Humanity has a definite beginning.

If God squelches his design of humanity into oblivion, this would in essence prove God unable to carry out his word, promises, design, will, plan, and goal. It would make God partial as well as prove he cannot live up to his own standards. Can God blast all into oblivion? Yes, but to do so would cause him to deny who he is as a sovereign who is perfect in all his way, right and just is he, without fault, without iniquity, a God of justice, in essence a God who really loves. Therefore, God sanctions new souls with immortality because of who he is.

He fashioned humanity originally to be a reflection of his image and likeness. Not an exact duplicate or another God — but partakers of certain attributes of his divine nature so humanity could carry out the duties he originally assigned humanity with. This is his sanction. To take this away would prove what about God?

The Almighty did not have to create humanity foreknowing sin would enter the world but he did. This act reveals a lot about God's Character as being all that he is — God able to all powerfully work through all things to achieve his goal. The Lord had a plan of salvation in mind that demonstrates his great love and test humanity as well. Will they return to him or reject his act of love? There are consequences to rejection: banishment.

Is God guilty of foreknowing all things so that he can make a person a Pharaoh or a saint? The answer is, No. He cannot help but foreknows the outcome that his own offer has upon a person and can do as he wills with no injustice to all. One can either accept or reject God. If God denies that ability to accept or reject himself — then how can he truly prove himself as being truly all powerfully able to work through all things in such manner that proves he is true to no one but himself? Think about this more on your own.

Secondly, what does sin effect?

If what you mean is, "What effect did sin have upon mankind, through the first Adam?" I would have to say, it had the effect of: ripping man apart (in spirit, soul, and body); of preventing man from living forever in body, soul and spirit in paradise; of separating man from his creator; or of severing the ties or intimate relationship he had with his creator.

Response: Are all sins the same or are there different degrees of sin? How can there be differences in degrees if since the effect of any has the effect of ripping man apart (in spirit, soul, and body); of preventing man from living forever in body, soul and spirit in paradise; of separating man from his creator; severing the ties of intimate relationship he had with his creator?

Third question - Did God forsake man or did man forsake God?

Man sinned against God. I can see how one might take that to mean man forsook God. But, in a very real sense, I think God forsook man.

Response: The bible reveals that it is humanity that forsakes God — abandons him and his ways. Rejecting God's word and call to them. Adam and Eve both willingly rejected the Lord so they could become their own gods. The sin they committed put God to the test as well as tempted him to be less than God true to himself in all his ways.

That is sin in all its forms — it seeks to blame God instead of taking responsibility to owe up to wrong doing and repent. It seeks to manipulate God's love, justice, truth, mercy, and even maneuver God's own good character and nature in such manner all in order to gain mastery over God himself. Since God sanctions immortality — he will punish forever in containment due to the nature of sin and his own will that reneges not on any thing he says.

Look at the following scriptural examples left for us concerning humanity forsaking God:

Isaiah 1:4, “Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the LORD, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged...” ESV

Isaiah 1:27-31, “Zion shall be redeemed by justice, and those in her who repent, by righteousness. 28 But rebels and sinners shall be broken together, and those who forsake the LORD shall be consumed. 29 For they shall be ashamed of the oaks that you desired; and you shall blush for the gardens that you have chosen. 30 For you shall be like an oak whose leaf withers, and like a garden without water. 31 And the strong shall become tinder, and his work a spark, and both of them shall burn together, with none to quench them.” ESV

Mat 25:46, “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."” ESV

If sin has the effect of ripping man apart (in spirit, soul, and body); of preventing man from living forever in body, soul and spirit in paradise; of separating man from his creator; severing the ties of intimate relationship he had with his creator, then what will God do with sinners who spurn his Love displayed by Christ and continue to chose sin over his love?

God did not forsake mankind as he is not the one who sinned — we ripped apart that relationship — forsook him and his ways. Is God unjust to inflict eternal wrath because he sanctioned eternity in the human heart because what he does endures forever? Do you desire God to sanction annihilation's oblivion which in effect tempts God to deny himself, his word, his ways, his gifts, his callings, his image, his likeness? That's sin!
-
-
-

[jlay]

John 14:26, Jesus says, "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Now, this is either true, or the book of John, the centerpiece of the NT, is a lie, faith in Christ is a lie, and you are dead in your trespasses, or worm food. If it is true then Jesus explained to us exactly how HIStory would be told throught the NT writers.

Bob answered: How would you go about convincing me that that passage is directed to me when it seems obvious that it is directed to the first century's disciples or since nothing in that passage suggests that the Holy Spirit is going to bring all of Jesus' sayings to my mind, though I never heard Him say them, since I wasn't with Him then when He was on earth and dwelling in the flesh among men? It may be true for those disciples but not for me. I never would consider it to be a lie because I am convinced that Jesus walked in the flesh as a man, died as a man, rose from the dead as a man (i.e., the second Adam), and ascended into the heavens before more than 500 eyewitnesses as a man.

You asked how we know the NT writer's are reliable. "must admit that I am not as convinced of this as I'd like to be, because I would like to know how whichever NT writer wrote that about Him knew it, since I am sure He, like all men, may have been absolutely alone many times and no one was there to see what He did or didn't do and since no one but He and His Father knew what He was thinking until He spoke."
If the Holy Spirit was the hand, and they were the pen, then yes, their writings are most reliable. This verse (john 14:26) gives us a clear answer to your question. If you are convinced about Christ birth, death and resurrection, then are you in fact arguing against yourself. The testimony of the NT writers is such, and I fail to see how you can be convinced apart from the testimony of these men? In the context of your question, it doesn't matter if it is true for you.

[CuriousBob]

B.W.,

It is because of God's Holy Character and His ability to be all that He is that he placed eternity in the heart of humanity and remains faithful to his own word, plans, goals is why humanity enters the world through birth with what is termed as “an immortal soul.”

My question to you is as follows:

Does the Bible teach as you suggest (i.e., that humanity enters the world through what is termed as an immortal soul)?

Dr. Robert Morey's scholarly work on Death and the Afterlife suggests the Bible doesn't teach such a thing and he gives me some very convincing reasons for questioning anyone who suggests it does.

Let me quote from Dr. Morey's work on page 95:

Still others confuse the concept of a conscious afterlife with the biblical terms "immortality" and "incorruptibility." The word "immortality" is found five times in the KJV. The authors of the KJV translated two different Greek words as immortality. They were correct with one word but mistranslated the other.

The first word is athanasia. This is a combination of two Greek words which literally mean "no death." This word means "never ending existence" or the state of being oincapable of death." It is used to describe the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:43, 53.

The second word is aphtharsia. This is also a combination of ttwo Greek words which literally mean "no corruption." It means "the state of being incapable of corruption, decomposition, or degeneration." It is used to describe God in Rom. 1:23 and the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 52-54. The KJV mistranslates it as "immortality" in 1 Tim. 1:17 and 2 Tim. 1:10.

While athanasia reveals that the resurrected saints will never experience death, but exist for all eternity, aphtharsia reveals that this will not be a mere eternal existence but the fullest life of joy and satisfaction possible, because the resurrected sainst cannot experience any degeneration in the functions of body or mind. No corruption will disrupt the bliss of the eternal state.

From our examination of the terms "immortal" and "incorruptible," it is obvious that they describe the attributes of the resurrection body and do not speak of the condition of man's soul after death. As a matter of fact, the phrase "the immortality of the sould" is never found in Scripture, because the biblical authors wish to avoid the pagan connotations such as preexistence or transmigration which such a phrase would imply.

Do you desire God to sanction annihilation's oblivion which in effect tempts God to deny himself, his word, his ways, his gifts, his callings, his image, his likeness? That's sin!

Yes I would desire Him to deny Himself if doing so would make it possible or likely that I would be annihilated into oblivion, if faced with alternatives apart from an etnernal living hell and an eternal unconscious being.

[]Jlay,[/b]

[CuriousBob]

B.W.,

It is because of God's Holy Character and His ability to be all that He is that he placed eternity in the heart of humanity and remains faithful to his own word, plans, goals is why humanity enters the world through birth with what is termed as “an immortal soul.”

My question to you is as follows:

Does the Bible teach as you suggest (i.e., that humanity enters the world through what is termed as an immortal soul)?

Dr. Robert Morey's scholarly work on Death and the Afterlife suggests the Bible doesn't teach such a thing and he gives me some very convincing reasons for questioning anyone who suggests it does.

Let me quote from Dr. Morey's work on page 95:

Still others confuse the concept of a conscious afterlife with the biblical terms "immortality" and "incorruptibility." The word "immortality" is found five times in the KJV. The authors of the KJV translated two different Greek words as immortality. They were correct with one word but mistranslated the other.

The first word is athanasia. This is a combination of two Greek words which literally mean "no death." This word means "never ending existence" or the state of being oincapable of death." It is used to describe the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:43, 53.

The second word is aphtharsia. This is also a combination of ttwo Greek words which literally mean "no corruption." It means "the state of being incapable of corruption, decomposition, or degeneration." It is used to describe God in Rom. 1:23 and the resurrection body in 1 Cor. 15:42, 50, 52-54. The KJV mistranslates it as "immortality" in 1 Tim. 1:17 and 2 Tim. 1:10.

While athanasia reveals that the resurrected saints will never experience death, but exist for all eternity, aphtharsia reveals that this will not be a mere eternal existence but the fullest life of joy and satisfaction possible, because the resurrected sainst cannot experience any degeneration in the functions of body or mind. No corruption will disrupt the bliss of the eternal state.

From our examination of the terms "immortal" and "incorruptible," it is obvious that they describe the attributes of the resurrection body and do not speak of the condition of man's soul after death. As a matter of fact, the phrase "the immortality of the sould" is never found in Scripture, because the biblical authors wish to avoid the pagan connotations such as preexistence or transmigration which such a phrase would imply.

Do you desire God to sanction annihilation's oblivion which in effect tempts God to deny himself, his word, his ways, his gifts, his callings, his image, his likeness? That's sin!

Yes! I, most certainly would, if it meant that it was the only escape from eternal agony other than the one that God provided through Jesus Christ or if it was another option for those who reject Jesus Christ.

[B. W.]

B.W.,

It is because of God's Holy Character and His ability to be all that He is that he placed eternity in the heart of humanity and remains faithful to his own word, plans, goals is why humanity enters the world through birth with what is termed as “an immortal soul.”

My question to you is as follows:

Does the Bible teach as you suggest (i.e., that humanity enters the world through what is termed as an immortal soul)?

Dr. Robert Morey's scholarly work on Death and the Afterlife suggests the Bible doesn't teach such a thing and he gives me some very convincing reasons for questioning anyone who suggests it does….

I stated that the human soul has a definite beginning just as Psalms 139:13-16 states:

"13 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. 14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. 16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them..." ESV

It is because God sanctioned the soul to be immortal is why it becomes so in the womb. This has nothing to do with Plato. You sound intelligent and therefore should know that in order to understand a matter, terms are fashioned to aid understanding. The term 'immortal soul' is such term used to describe God's sanctioning the soul to be eternal because as it is written in Ecc 3:11-16:

"11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.

"12 I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; 13 also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man.

"14 I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him. 15 That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.

"16 Moreover, I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness, and in the place of righteousness, even there was wickedness. 17 I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work.

"18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts..." ESV

Note context and continuity of context as well. Verse 11 is connected to verse 14 and each defines each other. Verse 13 is telling us life is a gift from God - sanctioned by him so we can take pleasure in our toil: what toil? See Genesis chapters one and two regarding toil as originally designed.

Note how the flow proceeds to a place of justice and how God will judge the righteous and the wicked in verse 16-17. Verse 18 explains that God is testing us to see ourselves as beast - wicked. Note verse 15 which states God seeks that which has been driven away (Gen 3:24 due to the fall into sin). Jesus came to seek those who are lost (Luke 19:10 - "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." KJV).

Now proceed too Ecc 3:19-22

“19 For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.

“20 All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?

22 So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?” ESV

Verse 19 correlates the beast like nature man has fallen into to beast that die. It is because sin entered the world we die — the death sentence imposed by God for sin which was humanities choice at becoming beast like. It is because of sin that death entered the world of humanity — not old age as it is written in Rom 5:12, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” ESV

Verses 20-21 next tell us that because of the judgment of death our physical material/mortal body dies and returns to the dust but where does the essence of a person go?

The Ancient Hebrew used a word translated as 'Shade' to describe the part of a person that continues on after death. The word translated shade is often synonymously linked to the words spirit or soul to indicate that the shade (or essence) of a person — the real person indeed still exist after death. For example, In verse 21 it asks “whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?” indicating two directions the dead (shade) can take after being judged.

The context and continuity of the text clearly indicates judgment of the righteous and the wicked. However, humanity fell into sin and all have become like beast. However, the Lord seeks those that are lost and those that believe as John 3:36 are made righteous by God's hand and forgiven and those not — his wrath remains on them un-forgiven remaining beast like and sent downward away from God.

Those made righteous go upward to remain with God. These principles the bible amply teaches and there are many scriptures to back up what I just said. Now look at verse 22, and notice the question: “Who can bring him to see what will be after him?”

This refers to Christ Jesus as it is he himself who revealed what happens after death — one will either be found beast like and thus placed in hell and later the lake of fire (when body is rejoined with the shade) banished from God forever. Or found believing in him as saved by his seeking right hand, declared righteous by God, and thus live with him above where God resides.

All is vanity without Christ because — we all remain beast like appointed to die and enter into judgment. Again verses 11 and 14 as well as context show that God sanctioned humanity to be eternal beings as that is how fearfully and wonderfully made (created) He designed us. It is because he willed it so, sanctioned this, fashioned us originally in his eternal image and likeness that whatever he does endures forever...endures forever.
-
-
-
B. W. Melvin
Author A Land Unknown: Hell's Dominion

[B. W.]

...Yes I would desire Him to deny Himself if doing so would make it possible or likely that I would be annihilated into oblivion, if faced with alternatives apart from an etnernal living hell and an eternal unconscious being.

God will not deny himself nor will he deny the offer of his Son.

2 Timothy 2:11-13, "The saying is trustworthy, for: If we have died with him, we will also live with him; 12 if we endure, we will also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; 13 if we are faithless, he remains faithful-- for he cannot deny himself. " ESV

John 3:36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him." ESV

You do not have to face wrath or hell when you place your faith in Christ alone...

Romans 10:9-13, "...because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." ESV

You need but call...

So the question remains - will you??
-
-
-

[CuriousBob]

B.W.,

It is because God sanctioned the soul to be immortal is why it becomes so in the womb. This has nothing to do with Plato. You sound intelligent and therefore should know that in order to understand a matter, terms are fashioned to aid understanding. The term 'immortal soul' is such term used to describe God's sanctioning the soul to be eternal because as it is written in Ecc 3:11-16:

Please forgive me! I was very tired when I read your post and I thought it was inconsistent with what Dr. Morey was saying about the immortality of the soul.

I failed to connect the last paragraph I quoted from his book with the ones that followed, where he says,

A typical argument is often raised at this point by the annihilationists. Since the Bible does not use the phrase "immortal soul," and the word "immortal" refers only to the resurrection, they argue that the Bible teaches a bodily resurrection but not a conscious afterlife. They thus pit resurrection against a conscious afterlife as if the two were in conflict with each other.
This argument is, first of all, based on the assumption that if a certain theological word or phrase is not found in the Bible, then the concept which that word or phrase represents cannot be found in the Bible. For example, the Jehovah's Witnesses, using the same line of reasoning, argue: "Since the word 'Trinity' is not found in the Bible, therefore the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical.
What the Witnesses fail to see is that theological terminology was developed over the centuries in order to capsulize biblical teaching. Thus the concept of God in three persons is not based on the term "Trinity," but the term is based on the biblical concept of God in three persons.
It is on this same basis, therefore, that we are not overly impressed by arguments based on the absence in Scripture of such words as "Trinity" or "immortal soul." All such arguments from silence are obviously invalid.
Second, they falsely assume that the concepts of a conscious afterlife and a bodily resurrection are mutually exclusive. If one is true, the other is false. They thus present us with the dilemma of choosing either the immortality of the soul or the resurrection of the body.
They correctly point out that man was a physical whole at his creation. Man was not created to be an angel or to exist as a spiritual entity. Thus the resurrection of the body is necessary in order to reconstitute man to live once again as he originally did in the paradise of God. Creation explains the need for resurrection. It cannot explain man's existence as a disembodied spirit in a conscious afterlife. Therefore, they conclude the concept of an afterlife is unnecessary and inexplicable when examined from the viewpoint of creation.
The fatal flaw in their argument is their failure to see that while the creation explains the resurrection, the fall of man explains death and the afterlife.

So, it turns out that you didn't disagree with him after all. I regret having thought otherwise and hope you will forgive me.

Note context and continuity of context as well. Verse 11 is connected to verse 14 and each defines each other.

I am sorry, but I canot see how each defines the other. Also, I don't see how verse 13 leads you to believe that life is a gift from God, when, in fact, it seems to be suggesting and quite clearly so, that eating, drinking, and taking pleasure in all of one's toil is God's gift to man. It is not saying that life is God's gift to man, unless you interpret the actions of eating, drinking, etc. as life. But, when I think upon your suggestion that life is a gift from God, I think that you are suggesting that the essence of man (as opposed to the pleasure that man gets from eating, drinking, etc.) is a gift from God. This interpretation holds for me even after having considered toil's design in Genesis 1 & 2.
I found a commentary on Eccl. 3:11-16 at http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Re ... rpose.html. It makes quite a bit of sense to me. Here is it is:

Without God, man's resources are limited to what he has and what he makes out of life. When things go well, he is prideful and content, but when anything threatens his throne, he becomes very insecure and anxious. Because man is missing life's most essential part, his individual pursuits in life are vain. One cannot be pacified by temporal toys because God has set eternity in his heart.

You need but call...

So the question remains - will you??

"Have you?" would be more accurate, bcause I have. But, my question would be: What precisely did Paul mean when he said "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

If he meant everyone who calls with the intention of turning from their own ways, crucifying the flesh with its desires, taking up one's cross, working out one's salvation with fear and trembling, believing that faith without works is dead, etc., then he would be suggesting something different from the mere act of saying anything like, "Lord! Have mercy on me a sinner."

Before I bring any more questions to your attention I hope to see how you might answer that one, because, for most of my life I have struggled with it and similar questions.

[jlay]

What precisely did Paul mean when he said "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

If he meant everyone who calls with the intention of turning from their own ways, crucifying the flesh with its desires, taking up one's cross, working out one's salvation with fear and trembling, believing that faith without works is dead, etc., then he would be suggesting something different from the mere act of saying anything like, "Lord! Have mercy on me a sinner."

That is a whole other thread, is it not? And does nothing to answer this anthesia thing that nags at you, and leaves me scratching my head.

It sounds too me as if you say, "yes, I have trusted in God's gift of Christ." But at the same time you profess to not like God because He won't use narcotics on unsaved people when they die. Is this correct?

[B. W.]

So, it turns out that you didn't disagree with him after all. I regret having thought otherwise and hope you will forgive me.

Note context and continuity of context as well. Verse 11 is connected to verse 14 and each defines each other.

I am sorry, but I canot see how each defines the other. Also, I don't see how verse 13 leads you to believe that life is a gift from God, when, in fact, it seems to be suggesting and quite clearly so, that eating, drinking, and taking pleasure in all of one's toil is God's gift to man. It is not saying that life is God's gift to man, unless you interpret the actions of eating, drinking, etc. as life. But, when I think upon your suggestion that life is a gift from God, I think that you are suggesting that the essence of man (as opposed to the pleasure that man gets from eating, drinking, etc.) is a gift from God. This interpretation holds for me even after having considered toil's design in Genesis 1 & 2. I found a commentary on Eccl. 3:11-16 at http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Re ... rpose.html. It makes quite a bit of sense to me. Here is it is:

Without God, man's resources are limited to what he has and what he makes out of life. When things go well, he is prideful and content, but when anything threatens his throne, he becomes very insecure and anxious. Because man is missing life's most essential part, his individual pursuits in life are vain. One cannot be pacified by temporal toys because God has set eternity in his heart.

I am surprised that most people miss the beauty of Ecc 3:13 as it connects to verses 1-10: A time and season for every purpose under heaven. In this light the phrase used in vers 13 serves as a double entrée.

In the positive sense, refers back to the pre-fallen condition of Humanity when there was pleasure in doing what God said for man to do. He may eat of every tree in the garden, tend and keep it, name animals, take care of the world and others (family), etc and etc.

Such enjoyment in what you do as well partaking of the fruit of your labor is a gift of God to you. This is part of God's gift of life. We can enjoy the fruit of our toil! God does bless his people. Such are content with what things they have and we can call such - well - happy. They treat life as a gift from God and share this gift wisely as God so leads them in many diverse ways.

On the negative side, as your commentary points outs: Without God, man's resources are limited to what he has and what he makes out of life. When things go well, he is prideful and content, but when anything threatens his throne, he becomes very insecure and anxious. Because man is missing life's most essential part, his individual pursuits in life are vain.

People, due to sin, abuse God's goodness and gift of life so much so that people no longer view Life as a gift from God but all dreariness and toil. Hate and rebellion builds in a person toward God through such resentments. Later in verses 17 and it states what?

Ecc 3:17-18, “I said in my heart, God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work. 18 I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts.”

Now read Ecc 3:13 again: “…also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man.”

Apply the double entrée to it and I hope you catch on…

Ecc 3:17, “God will judge the righteous and the wicked, for there is a time for every matter and for every work…”

Ecc 3:21, “Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?”

Ecc 3:22, “So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?”

Jesus certainly was the one who can bring us to see what will come after we are gone…

Of the last Judgment Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” John 5:24-29

Before the Last Judgment in Luke 16:19-31 Jesus tells it like it is for those who abuse God's goodness and exploit his gift of life for selfish purposes…

Ecc 3:21, “Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth?”

Now read again: Ecc 3:22, “So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?”

John 3:16-21, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God…36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.”

“Who knows whether the spirit of man goes upward and the spirit of the beast goes down into the earth? So I saw that there is nothing better than that a man should rejoice in his work, for that is his lot. Who can bring him to see what will be after him?” Ecc 3:21-22

Bible quotes from ESV…

As for your last question - I'll answer later in another post. I hope you can see the Ecc chapter three has very deep meanings within it...
-
-
-

[B. W.]

So the question remains - will you?? ..."Have you?" would be more accurate, bcause I have. But, my question would be: What precisely did Paul mean when he said "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

If he meant everyone who calls with the intention of turning from their own ways, crucifying the flesh with its desires, taking up one's cross, working out one's salvation with fear and trembling, believing that faith without works is dead, etc., then he would be suggesting something different from the mere act of saying anything like, "Lord! Have mercy on me a sinner."

Before I bring any more questions to your attention I hope to see how you might answer that one, because, for most of my life I have struggled with it and similar questions.

You ask a very good question that has troubled many. Do we work at staying saved or do we merely believe as one would in Santa Claus to be saved.

The answer to both would be NO…

Here is your answer:

One who loves — loves the one who they love and seeks to serve the one loved because they love. Such find rest in service, not drudgery. Toiling for the Lord who you love is joy and a blessing — not grinding labor used to earn acceptance from the one loved. If it is all toil and gloom what is the Lord trying to replace within you?

There is a time when we first believe and come to know the reality of Christ. Love grows from that point as we find rest for our weary souls as we learn to trust in him...call upon him...

Mat 11:28-30 -- Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Romans 10:17, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ...."

Think of faith as a reality. Is Christ work on the cross a reality to you? Are the depths of sin a reality to you? Is the need to be forgiven a reality to you? Is Believing in Christ a reality to you everyday as you live life?

The point when one first believes in Christ is when He becomes the reality of your life's course -- altering it, changing it, transforming it, day by day...

Has that day come unto you?
-
-
-

[Byblos]

So the question remains - will you?? ..."Have you?" would be more accurate, bcause I have. But, my question would be: What precisely did Paul mean when he said "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved?"

If he meant everyone who calls with the intention of turning from their own ways, crucifying the flesh with its desires, taking up one's cross, working out one's salvation with fear and trembling, believing that faith without works is dead, etc., then he would be suggesting something different from the mere act of saying anything like, "Lord! Have mercy on me a sinner."

Before I bring any more questions to your attention I hope to see how you might answer that one, because, for most of my life I have struggled with it and similar questions.

You ask a very good question that has troubled many. Do we work at staying saved or do we merely believe as one would in Santa Claus to be saved.

The answer to both would be NO…

Here is your answer:

One who loves — loves the one who they love and seeks to serve the one loved because they love. Such find rest in service, not drudgery. Toiling for the Lord who you love is joy and a blessing — not grinding labor used to earn acceptance from the one loved. If it is all toil and gloom what is the Lord trying to replace within you?

There is a time when we first believe and come to know the reality of Christ. Love grows from that point as we find rest for our weary souls as we learn to trust in him...call upon him...

Mat 11:28-30 -- Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Romans 10:17, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ...."

Think of faith as a reality. Is Christ work on the cross a reality to you? Are the depths of sin a reality to you? Is the need to be forgiven a reality to you? Is Believing in Christ a reality to you everyday as you live life?

The point when one first believes in Christ is when He becomes the reality of your life's course -- altering it, changing it, transforming it, day by day...

Has that day come unto you?
-
-
-

An amazing post B.W. Thank you.