Eternal suffering? Or eternal death?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne

Tell you what. Make your best case that Jesus' view of "belief" / "belief in Him" entails believing in "salvation via atoning sacrifice".

Are you able to grasp that in so doing a case (whether the "best" or not) should not be thought of meaning that ONLY the shedding of redemptive blood for atonement is important to God's eternal purpose?

A case for the redeeming blood of His sacrifice certainly can be made. The case cannot be made not should be made that justification through His death is the ONLY thing taught by Christ.

As long as you hold that kind of false dichotomy in mind, you are likely to misrepresent the teaching on Justification / redemption / atoning sacrifice of Christ. You will always be able to say:

"But look at these verses over here which talk a lot about being a disciple of Jesus but don't speak to atoning sacrifice."

I fully acknowledge those teachings but WITHOUT using them to DENY His redemptive death.

Do you understand this point ?

To be clear, demonstrate this using the words He spoke while He walked the Earth - and, yes, once again this means prior to His crucifixion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This criteria of yours carries with it, I think, a preconception. It carries a presupposition to which I am not happy to express a lot of sympathy or compliance. What are the presuppositions of this criteria you establish as a goal post. They are something like this:

1.) The default approach to the New Testament is that Christ is dead and gone.
2.) The default approach is that things allegedly said by Jesus after resurrection then, of course, cannot be trusted.
3.) The default attitude should be that He only "walked the earth" before He died, after which He no longer "walked the earth".
4.) The default position should be that we know today better what He taught then the twelve apostles who certainly were either dishonest or trying to make a conspiracy of mythology.
5.) The prophets and apostles know less than the modernist "higher critics" about the nature of Christ's ministry.

By setting the goal post as you think is the only legitimate default challenge you strongly imply these presuppositions. I am not empathetic to your skeptical presuppositions.

IF I go along with your restrictions it shall not be an indication that I at all agree that this is how a anti-miraculous default criteria HAS to be set up to understand the ministry of Jesus Christ.

With that understanding on your part, I don't mind maybe humoring you a bit. So then, prior to His crucifixion while "He walked on earth" (the phrase which you love).

The table meeting and the last supper was PRIOR to His being crucified, Two passages describe the nature of the "new covenant" which He came to be an executor of.
Grasp the teaching rather than worry about the ritual ways of tradition.

Luke 22:19-20

"And He took a loaf and gave thanks, and He broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is My body which is being given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.

And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you."

And Matthew's recording for us of the same discussion:

Matthew 26:26-28

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said, Take eat; this is My body.

And He took a cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to them, saying, Drink of it all of you, For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins."

This is BEFORE His crucifixion. Do not attempt to further tune your criteria.
These are the quite significant parting words of Jesus Christ BEFORE the arrest, trial, and subsequent execution of crucifixion - the breaking of His body and the spilling of His blood.

Originally posted by Tom Wolsey
Some verses in favor of the eternal torment position are:

... I lean in favor of annihilation but the problem is there are theologians including my mentor of many years who are far more educated on these matters, and they favor the eternal torment position. Eternal torment is the establishment, consensus view.

Where did this mentor of yours get his "education"?

And what "establishment" are you talking about?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Where did this mentor of yours get his "education"?

And what "establishment" are you talking about?

As if anyone knew anything about eternal torture or eternal death.

One thing I know is that eternal torture is bad for both torturer and tortured

Tom, Tom
Tell us about your Mentor!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Tom, Tom
Tell us about your Mentor!

I hope he didn't charge 🙂

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Your view of this word requires actions, a concept that makes you unpopular.

Actually what's "unpopular" is Jesus' view of what "belief" / "belief in Him" entails.

When Jesus spoke of "belief in Him" while He walked the Earth it was:
1) Belief that He was speaking the will of God
2) Belief in those words in and of themselves.
Belief tha ...[text shortened]... ason that you find Christianity nonsensical is that those words do not serve as its foundation.[/b]

"KEEPing" His word"

To what end? That is what's causing the debate. Jesus said "go and sin no more", but it has been suggested that He didn't mean ALL sin, but likely the particular sin that's been ruining your life, or leading you away from God.

Tom, Tom, the Piper's son
Asked a question
Away he ran