Annihilationism, Nirvana and Atheism.

[37818]

My understanding is that the outer darkness is Sheol. Not really hell, with God tormenting people. Rather death, which was considered in the OT to be a shadowy existence. It's also possible Matthew (whose phrase this is) didn't have a specific geography of the afterlife, and the outer darkness was the ultimate exclusion from the Kingdom of God, but not a specific place. The only weeping and gnashing of teeth in Luke is 13:28, where it simply describes someone who is thrown out of the Kingdom, without a specific final resting place mentioned.

It is in a sense the same thing as the furnace of fire, since that image refers to the furnace in Daniel, which would be death or destruction. Note that Mat 13:42 combines both.

Jude is a reference to the myth of the Watchers. It describes a group of fallen angels. They are held under the earth until the day of Judgement. So this isn't really relevant to the ultimate fate of humans, since Jude 6 is clearly referring to angels, and says that it's temporary. (Yes, it says eternal chains. But remember that in the Bible, "eternal" isn't always everlasting. The rest of the verse says they're held in these eternal chains until Judgement.)

As usual, I need to point out that a variety of images, all associated with death or destruction, are used. If you take them literally, the outer darkness of Sheol with a shadowy existence contradicts destruction with fire. But I don't think the images are intended to be taken so literally. This is a set of conventional images for rejection in the Judgement, just as today people talk about Peter at the pearly gates without intending that to be taken literally.

I think the imagery in the Rev is actually consistent with what I described above.

We have Satan confined to the pit until the final judgement, as in Jude. Those who received the mark of the beast are killed but not put into the fire with the beast and false prophet. Then we have the final judgement where everyone is judged, with the rejects going into fire which is also called the second death. But in 22:15 we have people outside the city. This tells us we're dealing with multiple images, and not a literal account, since otherwise there would be no one left to be outside the city. They'd all be in the lake of fire which is the second death.

In general we have a set of images of death, destruction and exclusion. It's pretty much the same variety as found in the Gospels.

If you really feel the need to come up with a single, literal explanation, I think destruction is the best.

Can you better explain how you came to your conclusion about the meaning of the "outer darkness?"

[Timothy]

No, I don't know that you said that. Don't even bring up that "the phrase is not in the Bible" malarky unless you intend to go all the way with it. Otherwise it's nothing but rhetorical bombast.
No. He said they will continue in existence for a very long time. That could be annihlationism or it could be universalism. And even if he is an annihlationist, that's two, maybe three. Big whoop.
A unitarian could make much the same argument. You really want to go down that road?
You've already been show that your "dead must always mean cessation of existence" line is suspect at best and insisting that the damned are "alive" just because they happen to still exist and feel rides roughshod over every connatation that the word has. Is someone who has suffered higher brain death "alive?" Technically, yes- but that's about it. You're acting like a caricature of a unitarian who's only argument is insisting over and over again that "the Bible says that there is ONE God."

You don't know what you are talking about. You think I'm a unitarian now? You are completely wrong and you are trying to force the Bible to say something it doesn't say, and when I point out that FACT to you, you start name calling.

[Kelp(p)]

I never said "if the exact word isn't in the Bible, then I don't believe in it" and you know that I didn't. If you need to put words in MY mouth just to win an argument, your proof is not very good.

No, I don't know that you said that. Don't even bring up that "the phrase is not in the Bible" malarky unless you intend to go all the way with it. Otherwise it's nothing but rhetorical bombast.

Annihilationism says that the wicked will be destroyed and will be no more. If that is alien to the Bible, then the Bible is alien to the Bible.
Here's the thing, The Bible actually says that the wicked will be destroyed and the wicked will be no more, but the Bible NEVER says that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever. And it is not true that you have "every church father" on your side. That is absolutely false. Irenaeus said that the wicked will have a discontinuance of existence.

No. He said they will continue in existence for a very long time. That could be annihlationism or it could be universalism. And even if he is an annihlationist, that's two, maybe three. Big whoop.

Also the rest of the Church Fathers quote the Bible, and your side has the unfortunate tendency to read eternal conscious torment into everything. If the church fathers quote Matthew 25:46, your side counts it as proof that the CFs believe in eternal conscious torment, even though Matt 25:46 doesn't say eternal torment, it says eternal punishment.

A unitarian could make much the same argument. You really want to go down that road?

And you say that Jesus' statement that the body and soul will be destroyed in hell doesn't prove your your point wrong that the wicked can exist in hell. Jesus said that they are destroyed, that proves that they are destroyed and proves your point wrong that they are not destroyed.

You haven't got a biblical leg to stand on for eternal conscious torment in hell.

You've already been show that your "dead must always mean cessation of existence" line is suspect at best and insisting that the damned are "alive" just because they happen to still exist and feel rides roughshod over every connatation that the word has. Is someone who has suffered higher brain death "alive?" Technically, yes- but that's about it. You're acting like a caricature of a unitarian who's only argument is insisting over and over again that "the Bible says that there is ONE God."

[Timothy]

Do you believe it's unbiblical to speak of "physical death" too?

I believe that Jesus Christ will return to resurrect the dead, and then the dead will no longer be dead, they will be alive. And He will give eternal life to those who have put their faith in Him, and those that reject Him will return to death. I believe what the Bible says. When the Bible says "death" do you find that it always says either "physical death" or "spiritual death"?
Do you think that it is wrong to believe what the Bible says instead of traditions?

[Timothy]

Don't give me that fundamentalist "if the exact word isn't in the Bible, then I don't believe in it," crap. You're smarter than that.

Spiritual death is moral estrangement from God. If you're going to take human depravity at all seriously you have to recognize this. Otherwise Adam and Eve would have ceased existing once they ate the fruit. And even if it is "just a metaphor," that still refutes your insistence on interpreting the second death as literal cessation of existence.

That doesn't refute my point. You've not provided a concrete reason for either insisting that there is only one kind of death in Scripture or for interpreting death of the soul literally here (I could also invoke Colossians 3:3 for either side, I reckon). If the damned are bodily thrown into the lake of fire and then preserved there by God to suffer, then the final death of the body is also metaphorical in way.

Think about this way. Christ says not to fear those that can destroy the body. But what do we fear when we fear death at the hands of our fellow man? If someone strangles me, my body is still there. If I get cremated, say, my body will just sit in the funeral home until that happens. After that, if you really want to get pedantic, my ashes will still be here too.

I'm not afraid of getting cremated because I won't be in this body for the sensation. All I fear is the initial death by strangling.



Even looking at in terms of the tradition of exegesis, annihlationism loses. Your side has Arnobius and maybe St. Justin Martyr. I have every other Church Father. Annihlationism is almost as alien to Christianity as hyperpreterism is. That doesn't prove anything, true. But it does give one great pause.

I never said "if the exact word isn't in the Bible, then I don't believe in it" and you know that I didn't. If you need to put words in MY mouth just to win an argument, your proof is not very good.
Annihilationism says that the wicked will be destroyed and will be no more. If that is alien to the Bible, then the Bible is alien to the Bible.
Here's the thing, The Bible actually says that the wicked will be destroyed and the wicked will be no more, but the Bible NEVER says that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever. And it is not true that you have "every church father" on your side. That is absolutely false. Irenaeus said that the wicked will have a discontinuance of existence. Also the rest of the Church Fathers quote the Bible, and your side has the unfortunate tendency to read eternal conscious torment into everything. If the church fathers quote Matthew 25:46, your side counts it as proof that the CFs believe in eternal conscious torment, even though Matt 25:46 doesn't say eternal torment, it says eternal punishment.

And you say that Jesus' statement that the body and soul will be destroyed in hell doesn't prove your your point wrong that the wicked can exist in hell. Jesus said that they are destroyed, that proves that they are destroyed and proves your point wrong that they are not destroyed.

You haven't got a biblical leg to stand on for eternal conscious torment in hell.

[Kelp(p)]

"An hypocrite with [his] mouth destroyeth his neighbour: . . ." -- Proverbs 11:9.

You still committed an ad hominem attack.

It wasn't an ad hom. It was an insult (and a warranted one at that). Learn the difference.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

I'm also fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible.

If its in the old sense, good for you. I think inerrancy is untenable, but whatever.

If it's in the new sense, then get that Latin out of your signature and quit with the godless study of logic (I'm only half kidding).

[Anthropos]

No, I am not "conflating spiritual and physical death". I read what the passage said, and I didn't add "spiritual death" to the passage. Did you know that the term "spiritual death" never occurs in the Bible? I know that "spiritual death" is very popular, it just isn't Biblical.

Do you believe it's unbiblical to speak of "physical death" too?

[37818]

Some are and when they are they are often so inconsistently. Fundamentalism is not merely (and I would argue, hardly at all anymore) "the adherence to the 1910 document called The Fundamentals." The word has evolved (in the context of Christianity, at least) to denote a kind of anti-intellectual Biblical hyperliteralism that rejects all reference to outside scholarship as being antithetical to faith.

It is true that not all Fundamentalists reject all terms outside the Bible. It is an intellectual phenomenon that occurs among fundamentalists, though. Here's a salient example I found the other day. To his credit the author doesn't straight up say that he rejects the term because it is not found in the Bible, he merely implies it. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...ble_church.htm This guy obviously would not accept the concept of the church invisible unless one showed him a verse saying, "There is an invisible church."

"An hypocrite with [his] mouth destroyeth his neighbour: . . ." -- Proverbs 11:9.

You still committed an ad hominem attack.

I'm also fundamentalist when it comes to the Bible.

[Kelp(p)]

That is not an honest statement. Fundamentalists are Tinitarian for example.

Some are and when they are they are often so inconsistently. Fundamentalism is not merely (and I would argue, hardly at all anymore) "the adherence to the 1910 document called The Fundamentals." The word has evolved (in the context of Christianity, at least) to denote a kind of anti-intellectual Biblical hyperliteralism that rejects all reference to outside scholarship as being antithetical to faith.

It is true that not all Fundamentalists reject all terms outside the Bible. It is an intellectual phenomenon that occurs among fundamentalists, though. Here's a salient example I found the other day. To his credit the author doesn't straight up say that he rejects the term because it is not found in the Bible, he merely implies it. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False...ble_church.htm This guy obviously would not accept the concept of the church invisible unless one showed him a verse saying, "There is an invisible church."

[37818]

Don't give me that fundamentalist "if the exact word isn't in the Bible, then I don't believe in it," crap.

That is not an honest statement. Fundamentalists are Tinitarian for example.

[37818]

I don't see any evidence in the Bible that Adam and Eve died the day of the first sin. According to Genesis 5:5, Adam died much later. There is no mention of Adam dying (in any way) before that. I have heard a lot of people say to me that Adam died "spiritually" that same day, but nobody has shown me where the Bible says that they died spiritually that day.

No where in the written word of God will you find the phrase "spiritual death" either. God told Adam that day he would die (Genesis 2:17). Else the serpent told the truth and God did lie. Do you have a third choice?

[Kelp(p)]

No, I am not "conflating spiritual and physical death". I read what the passage said, and I didn't add "spiritual death" to the passage. Did you know that the term "spiritual death" never occurs in the Bible? I know that "spiritual death" is very popular, it just isn't Biblical.

Don't give me that fundamentalist "if the exact word isn't in the Bible, then I don't believe in it," crap. You're smarter than that.

Spiritual death is moral estrangement from God. If you're going to take human depravity at all seriously you have to recognize this. Otherwise Adam and Eve would have ceased existing once they ate the fruit. And even if it is "just a metaphor," that still refutes your insistence on interpreting the second death as literal cessation of existence.

Because Jesus said that the body and soul would be destroyed in hell.

That doesn't refute my point. You've not provided a concrete reason for either insisting that there is only one kind of death in Scripture or for interpreting death of the soul literally here (I could also invoke Colossians 3:3 for either side, I reckon). If the damned are bodily thrown into the lake of fire and then preserved there by God to suffer, then the final death of the body is also metaphorical in way.

Think about this way. Christ says not to fear those that can destroy the body. But what do we fear when we fear death at the hands of our fellow man? If someone strangles me, my body is still there. If I get cremated, say, my body will just sit in the funeral home until that happens. After that, if you really want to get pedantic, my ashes will still be here too.

I'm not afraid of getting cremated because I won't be in this body for the sensation. All I fear is the initial death by strangling.



Even looking at in terms of the tradition of exegesis, annihlationism loses. Your side has Arnobius and maybe St. Justin Martyr. I have every other Church Father. Annihlationism is almost as alien to Christianity as hyperpreterism is. That doesn't prove anything, true. But it does give one great pause.

[Timothy]

You're conflating spiritual and physical death. If one can be suffering estrangement from God while they still exist, then why can't Hell be the same way? And remember, we agree that the mortality of the soul is irrelevant to the discussion.

No, I am not "conflating spiritual and physical death". I read what the passage said, and I didn't add "spiritual death" to the passage. Did you know that the term "spiritual death" never occurs in the Bible? I know that "spiritual death" is very popular, it just isn't Biblical.

If one can be suffering estrangement from God while they still exist, then why can't Hell be the same way?

Because Jesus said that the body and soul would be destroyed in hell.

[Timothy]

That explains your view. Thanks. I unerstand Adam & Eve died spiritually that very day as in Genesis 2:17 & Genesis 3:6. The serpent having lied (Genesis 3:4; John 8:44), in effect murdering them..

I don't see any evidence in the Bible that Adam and Eve died the day of the first sin. According to Genesis 5:5, Adam died much later. There is no mention of Adam dying (in any way) before that. I have heard a lot of people say to me that Adam died "spiritually" that same day, but nobody has shown me where the Bible says that they died spiritually that day.

[37818]

Do you agree that those who are dead in their trespasses and sins are not literally dead? So given that they are not literally dead, the passage uses the term "dead" in a figurative sense.

That explains your view. Thanks. I unerstand Adam & Eve died spiritually that very day as in Genesis 2:17 & Genesis 3:6. The serpent having lied (Genesis 3:4; John 8:44), in effect murdering them..