2 edits
-Removed-Revelation mentions "the Lamb" many times. It must refer to Jesus.
But it does not mean that Jesus is a little four footed creature with wool and a little tail that goes bah, bah.
What you are doing is taking this allegory and others like it as refuge for not believing in some kind of conscious eternal punishment of the lost.
You are hoping that you an stretch further the presence of allegory and symbol to negate something in the Bible that you hate.
The principle of symbols is unmistakable in much of the Bible. You're hoping that the principle can be stretched out far enough to negate a teaching hated by your sensibilities - the matter of eternal punishment.
It doesn't work for me at all, even if I wanted it to.
I could not with a clear conscience extend the principle of symbolism to symbolize away the wrath of God abiding upon the irreconcilable.
Since this approach is not effective you have other methods. You heap up details to make more despicable the concept. Ie. Jesus gloating with sadistic enjoyment as He does nothing else in eternity by have a front row seat at the tormented.
Neither of these methods is effective to those who read the Bible thoroughly and take in everything that is revealed.
Divegeester,
What I don't get is why you don't correspondingly believe that there is no "eternal life" either. If "eternal punishment" is unconscious non-existence in the Bible then WHY isn't eternal life also unconscious non-existence as well ?
How about your next post to me explain that.
Why don't you apply the same principles of symbolism and teach that unconscious non-existence is the destiny of all human beings regardless of what God has done for them ?
Why is this not an unwarranted selectivity on the positive side with a bias ?
And they shall go away into eternal punishment [non-existence ?] ,
but the righteous into eternal life [non-existence ?] (Matt. 25:46)
Why isn't that your position ? that their common destiny is unconscious non-existence?
2 edits
Originally posted by @sonshipIf eternal punishment is understood as the eternal 'absence from God', then logically this does not negate eternal life. (Eternal presence of God).
Divegeester,
What I don't get is why you don't correspondingly believe that there is no [b]"eternal life" either. If "eternal punishment" is unconscious non-existence in the Bible then WHY isn't eternal life also unconscious non-existence as well ?
How about your next post to me explain that.
Why don't you apply the ...[text shortened]... uote]
Why isn't that your position ? that their common destiny is unconscious non-existence?[/b]
And they shall go away into eternal punishment [absence of God] ,
but the righteous into eternal life [presence of God] (Matt. 25:46)
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
If eternal punishment is understood as the eternal 'absence from God', then logically this does not negate eternal life. (Eternal presence of God).
My problem here is that I ask Divegeester a question and expect Divegeester to give Divegeester's answer. I don't want Divegeester to slip behind your coattail and hide out behind YOUR answer.
Then if you get debunked he can always say "Well that was not what I answered."
Before I go off and argue with you let me hear what Divegeester would think for himself. You know he is real, real big on being original.
Originally posted by @sonshipI'll be waiting.....If eternal punishment is understood as the eternal 'absence from God', then logically this does not negate eternal life. (Eternal presence of God).
My problem here is that I ask Divegeester a question and expect Divegeester to give Divegeester's answer. I don't want Divegeester to slip behind your coattail and hide out behind Y ...[text shortened]... hear what Divegeester would think for himself. You know he is real, real big on being original.
-Removed-You do what you think is right also.
In the same way that there is a literal eternal life but no literal tree of eternal life.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There probably is no literal tree of life now. But in the time of the beginning of man on earth, there was.
Just as Christ replaces the ark of Noah so Christ replaces that tree of life which actually was in the garden of Eden.
That is how I would understand it.
In the same way that there is a literal spotless sacrifice, but there is no literal lamb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same as above I think applies with the lamb examined for four days for blemishes before being sacrificed. There is Christ today to be the reality that was POINTED TO by the actual propitiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament.
In the same way that there is a literal body of Christ but the bread wasn't it, even though Jesus said it was.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A similar interpretation I would apply. There was bread that came miraculously from God for 40 years to the wandering Israelites. It pointed TO Christ who gave His body on the cross that we could "eat" the divine life of God, ie. get God intio us.
When Jesus did the sign with the loaves and the fishes, He used the actual physical things to stand for more profound matters related to Himself, just as He also did with the manna that fell from the sky.
" Jesus answered them and said, truly, truly, I say to you, You seek Me not because you have seen signs, but because you ate of the bread add were filled." (John 6:26)
In other words, they witnessed the miracle done with physical things but they did not comprehend the sign, the symbolism that the miracle pointed to.
So far I would say that for a period of time the physical matters did exist, albeit temporarily.
In the same way that Jesus said his flesh was "real food" when in fact is wasn't literally food like animal flesh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Real food" means the real reality of all that physical food points to.
The real food is to have God's life dispensed into us.
We may eat physical food and will die.
To receive God into us will mean resurrection and eternal life.
So God and Christ are "more real" than anything ""real" in the physical universe.
" Because in Him [Christ] all things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the visible and the invisible ... all things have been created through Him and unto Him.
And He is before all things, and all things cohere in Him." (See Col. 1:16,17)
All things therefore are not as real as Christ. they are real but Christ the eternal uncreated source of all is more real. They are all contingent upon Him.
In the same way that you have looked on something sinful and have not plucked out your eye (or indeed both if you looked with both), even though Jesus commanded you to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For space sake I will deal with this rationale separately.
You choose to believe that the Jesus of John 3:16 will also oversee the mass eternal torture of billions of people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So "might not perish" means to you non-existence.
And by adding "billions" and "torture" you feel strength is added to your reasons.
Well, aside from the appeal to emotion, "should not perish" probably does not mean non-existence in the mind of the writer John.
Now I have two choices.
1.) I can assume that YOU know more what Jesus meant than the apostle John who wrote that Gospel.
2.) I can assume that JOHN probably knew better what Jesus meant, being WITH Him for three and one half years, hearing His teaching.
I think I should go with the second option - John need not seek Divegeester's explanation but rather knew what Jesus meant by "should not perish".
And according to the SAME chapter written by John there, when he records what John the Baptist said to "perish" has to do with abiding under the wrath of God.
" He who believes into the Son has eternal life; but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him." (v.36)
You interpret as you see fit.
I don't think that anyone nonexistent can be said to be abiding under the wrath of God. If that was the case then everyone who has not been born or created can be said to be abiding under the wrath of God. And that is ridiculous.
You must do what you think is spiritually right sonship.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is right. And I do not insist that others cannot interpret all this differently.
You differ in analysis. Fine.
But I will not easily allow you to dismiss my understanding as "strange" or "whacko" or "waffle".
Let me be fair about the following verse.
" He who believes into the Son has eternal life; but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him." (v.36)
I ask myself - "Well, could John the Baptist have meant that while the unbeliever is physically alive he abides under the wrath of God, but when he dies he is non-existent and is no longer abiding under the wrath of God? " In fact he would not be "abiding" ANYWHERE.
It may be a possibility. But does it correspond to other passages about rejection of the Son ?
In other words, why couldn't John have meant that the wrath of God abides upon him temporarily until such time as he is non-existent ?
Seekers of what the Bible must mean, think on it for awhile.
Me too. And I may give my take on this possibility a little latter.
-Removed-But is it "fine" that I differ in analysis from from you?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By "fine' I only mean that according to the principles of Christians receiving one another in Roman 14,15 its not a major matter putting someone outside the Christian brotherhood.
I don't mean - "Fine, I will also teach that way."
I've been asking you over and over again for about two years if my rejection of your version of the teaching doctrine precludes me from being filled with the spirit of Christ and therefore salvation, and you furtively refuse to answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I no longer understand anything of why you repeat this complaint.
To my recollection most of this stuff about "Well am I with the Spirit or not???" from you was usually related to the Trinity.
At any rate i don't worry about this complaint any longer because somehow you seem to be stuck on it. And I don't know why.
Don't bother to explain again why you keep asking this, because I don't intend to rehash that debate. Apparently, you won't be satisfied until certain preconceived words come out of my mouth.
No doubt you will avoid answering again despite slipping your foot and saying it is "fine". You are too in love with your own beliefs to permit someone else disagree and get away with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others disagree with me about this and i don't challenge them. IE Suizziane strongly holds to annhilation, I think.
But unlike you Suizziane doesn't get insulting about it. when you disagree with me you have to add special insulting effects and insist that questions addressed have never been addressed.
You seem stuck on some ineffective approach which is just too good to you to outgrow.
"Whacko" : I don't ever remember using the word "whacko" - you've quoted me as saying it can you back that up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is only a representative word typical of the kinds of words you use for my posts.
"Strange" : your beliefs about people on other worlds witnessing the torture of billions of people by Jesus and then "somehow glorifying him in there woe".... is VERY strange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This has been addressed.
There is no need to return to this argument.
"Waffle" : you do waffle. You cannot be brief.
--------------------------------------------------------------
That I am verbose, i don't deny.
I try to be concise.
The problem is that with some people conciseness does nothing more than give you ground to retort - "But you forgot or overlooked THIS".
Some of my verbosity is preemption. I anticipate objections and try to deal with some of them up front.
Your reply to me here for example. I didn't ask for an explaination of all the examples I gave you, I was just replying to what you seemed to think was a challenge in your post before.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You didn't ask. But don't expect me to just nod if I differ.
I reserve the right to reply, and if I wish - one by one.
You don't have to read it.
Now if you have nothing more on this, I think I will now give some reply to Ghost on his input to the problem.
7 edits
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeGhost-0f-a-duke's reply:
If eternal punishment is understood as the eternal 'absence from God', then logically this does not negate eternal life. (Eternal presence of God).
I am not sure what this above means.
And they shall go away into eternal punishment [absence of God] ,
but the righteous into eternal life [presence of God] (Matt. 25:46)
I take this to mean that the absence of God's presence must mean the absence of existence of His created beings.
Ie. If God is absent then the punished is non-existent.
So eternal presence of God is eternal life or eternal existence.
But the eternal absence of God is necessarily non-existence of any God intends to punish.
This I think is Ghost's thinking.
If this is not what you are thinking Ghost, please elaborate some more.
Originally posted by @sonshipI believe you have understood me correctly.
Ghost-0f-a-duke's reply:
If eternal punishment is understood as the eternal 'absence from God', then logically this does not negate eternal life. (Eternal presence of God).
I am not sure what this above means.
[quote]
[b] And they shall go away into eternal punishment [absence of God] ,
but the righteous into eternal ...[text shortened]... nk is Ghost's thinking.
If this is not what you are thinking Ghost, please elaborate some more.
As a consequence, the absence of a literal hell doesn't cancel out the concept of a literal heaven.
1 edit
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeDoes the absence of God mean the non-existence if his creature ?
I believe you have understood me correctly.
As a consequence, the absence of a literal hell doesn't cancel out the concept of a literal heaven.
It is not that easy because God is omnipresent in one sense.
I mean the Psalmist said there was no such thing really as the absence of God from anywhere.
"Where shall I go away from your spirit, And where shall I flee from Your presence ? If I ascend into heaven, You are there.; If I make my bed in Sheol, there You are. " Psalm 139:7,8)
Notice that the Psalmist did not say - " If I ascend to heaven, You are there. But if I descend into Sheol the realm of the dead (Hades or Hell) You are NOT there."
David did not say that in Sheol God was altogether absent.
Neither did David really say that because God is absent in Sheol David would not exist.
The tone is that even if David should deliberately go to the realm of death to get AWAY from God, it would not do any good. God would be there too!
"If I make my bed in Sheol, there You are."
So I think I have to understand that man can be where God is in His omnipresence but the blessing of God is not.
Back to Matthew 25:46 it must be that the lost are where God is in His omnipresence, which is impossible to get away from. But the blessing of God is not there. Rather the punishment of God is there.
Originally posted by @sonshipI get the omnipresent angle, but if we are to understand hell in a metaphorical sense, and not as a literal location where God would exist de facto as a result of his omnipresence, then hell simply becomes a place where God is 'not present'. In other words, the only place in existence where an omnipresent God does not exist,.....is non-existence. (Oblivion, if you like).
Does the absence of God mean the non-existence if his creature ?
It is not that easy because God is omnipresent in one sense.
I mean the Psalmist said there was no such thing really as the absence of God from anywhere.
[quote] [b] "Where shall I go away from your spirit, And where shall I flee from Your presence ? If I ascend into heaven, You ar ...[text shortened]... from. But the [b]blessing of God is not there. Rather the punishment of God is there.[/b]
I would first tender Daniel 12:2 as an example or hint of such a state of non-existence:
"Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt."
Note how some 'will not' awake from the dust in the ground to experience everlasting life, but only everlasting contempt. And again in Revelation 20:5 we have, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended..."
I ask you sonship, was God, as a result of His omnipresence, 'with' the 'rest of the dead' as they lay in their graves for 1000 years, before coming back to life? - Or are we seeing what hell itself will be like, not a 1000 years of absence from God, but an eternity?