LuftWaffle

The idea that all punishment must be corporal punishment, because unless its 'felt' it's not a punishment, is strange. Capital punishment has been seen as a harsh form of punishment throughout history. Human beings fear death and dread it. Depriving sinners of the eternal life that Christ offers is a great loss indeed. Since you're trying to tie the belief to atheism I'll do the same. Pro-choice people believe that killing unborn children is fine because depriving them of life before they can 'experience' anything or feel anything is okay. As Christians we believe life has intrinsic value. Are you pro-life? If so, does life have value? So isn't your view perhaps informed by hedonism, where it's all about how things feel, instead of valuing eternal life with Christ? Matthew 25:46 juxtaposes eternal punishment with eternal life: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”" What your view teaches is that both the saved and the unsaved life forever, it's just the location that differs. So your view is at odds with this verse. You believe that the unsaved with be alive, conscious and aware forever right? Annihilationism on the other hand is perfectly consistent with a literal reading of Matthew 25:46 in that the unsaved with be killed in the second death and they will remain dead forever as an eternal punishment. The first death was temporary followed by the resurrection and judgement, and the second death is eternal. You need to treat eternal life as not literally living forever, but as a symbolic phrase meaning something like "living forever in heaven" as opposed to "living forever in hell" but the verse you're quoting doesn't say that. "If you were captured and told you could choose a quick death or be tortured for months, what would you choose, actually? " We don't base doctrine on what sinners would least prefer, we base it on what the Bible teaches, not so? What if some modern heretic invented a new doctrine which claims that the unsaved will not only be burned forever, but have to listen to Katy Perry and Chér's songs while they're burning forever? Surely this would be slightly less preferable than merely burning forever, so then that must be true, since your theology is based on whatever is least preferable, right?

Get out of there! You seriously want to get into student debt so that you can be brainwashed into Marxism and Heresy while you or your parents are paying for it? University is a scam. If you're feeling called to spread the gospel and to learn more about God that can be done without having to go this route. Find me one place in the Bible where God told his followers to listen to the false teachers, but only till they get their credentials and then get out from them.

Hi Gman24 Hopefully you're doing well. Sorry for taking long to reply, it's been a busy week on my end. I really appreciate you answering the many questions that I posted. Sometimes one tends to project one's own experiences onto others, which is why questions are so important, to see what your situation is, instead of just making assumptions. It seems that you're somewhat isolated. The kids don't want to get involved or at least they're leaving it to you guys to 'figure out'. It's understandable, because they have their own lives, and as you mentioned they have their own problems too. I think in general men suffer far more in the kind of situation that you're in, than women do because women tend to have better emotional support systems in place. They tend to talk more freely about issues and they maintain better contact with friends and relatives. Men tend to be more withdrawn and they carry their burdens alone. That stoicism makes us tough but it also makes it hard, when you're in a crisis. So I guess, the first thing I want to say, is that it's fine to feel lonely and alone. It's normal! It's part of the cross that a man bears. All men are lonely. I would encourage you to reach out to some close friends though, and just be with them. You've mentioned that some Christian friends have tried talking to your wife. Maybe keep in touch with them too. At least it seems they're on your side and they can offer some help during the quiet times. Get some exercise. I know its probably the last thing you want to do when your heart is heavy and you're worried about your life being upended, but light exercise gives your mind a break and flushes the stress hormone (cortisol) out of your system so that you can think more clearly and feel more relaxed. If you're not in a position to exercise, cold showers counter-intuitively work too. Avoid taking the edge off with booze, or other substances. Find a good conservative church and maybe attend a service and speak to the priest, reverend, pastor or whatever. By conservative church I mean a church with traditional values, i.e. no female pastors, no pride flags. One that still sings Hymns if you can. Such a church will have a men's group that might offer support. As you can see by the answers you've been given so far, the general consensus is that your wife is in the wrong here. The bible takes marriage seriously as it does all covenants. Even if your marriage was originally based on sin (which it isn't), but even if it were, it's still a holy covenant. Just like Jacob stole Esau's blessing by deceiving his father Isaac, the blessing remained Jacob's, because a covenant cannot be broken except through the terms stipulated, so too your marriage cannot be reversed, no matter what your wife believes about it. Your prior marriage was broken through adultery. Nowhere does the Christian faith require a man to remain faithful to an unfaithful wife. Some here including myself think there's maybe more to your wife's sudden desire to 'just be friends', and that's why I asked so many questions. When a woman just wants to be friends it's not a good thing. In fact, no man wants to be 'friend-zoned' because it means she's no longer attracted to you, either a) because she's fallen out of love or b) she is in love, just not with you. Her actions aren't consistent with a Christian wishing to have God's favour over her life, but they are consistent with someone looking for a loophole to get out of her marriage. One has to wonder why, and I'm still puzzled by it. This is why I asked if perhaps there were financial problems, or if something changed recently. Her side of the story, based on what you're telling us, seems like a ruse. My advice here would be to stand your ground, and don't compromise what you know is right. Men in your position will do anything to save a marriage, because they don't want to be alone, they don't want to start over, so they crawl and beg and plead and sell their souls along with their dignity. That desperation will make you resent yourself and your wife later, and she'll think less of you. Women hate desperation so don't be desperate. While you may not think there's hope without her, time overcomes all wounds. She's the one who tore a hole in the relationship, she is rejecting the marriage so she's not deserving of your friendship. The last thing you want to do right now is play along with the 'just be friends' thing, or to pander to her or go and dates with her, hoping that you can win her back. You're her husband, you don't need to WIN anything back. You ought to be angry, it's your right. Leave her be, and hopefully she'll come to her senses and return home. Be strong! John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

What do you mean by, 'you were trying to protect her'? How did you view believers before? Did you scoff at or mock believers? What religion are you, I presume atheist? What your wife is doing is wrong and it's actually worse that she's using her faith as a weapon against you. I presume she knew that you were married before, right? Where does this sudden obsession of hers come from? I mean you two have been married a long time, so why now all of a sudden. Has she become more involved in the church? Has she joined a new church or Bible study group or something? This whole thing doesn't make a great deal of sense to be honest. hmm, so what exactly does she want? Here's the thing, it's really scary when your world gets upended like this, and it's easy to get gaslit and often times men will compromise themselves into oblivion when their spouse suddenly decides that she wants to 'be friends'. Her reasoning makes no sense and based on what you've told us, she's in the wrong and she's playing games. So either there are aspects to this story that'll shed more light which perhaps you've omitted or otherwise there's something wrong with her. While it's great that you've taken an interest in Christianity, I'm afraid converting in order to save your marriage isn't the way to go. Some more questions if you're okay with sharing: 1. How do the kids feel about this? What do they say? 2. How's your finances? Do you and your wife both work? Or you retired? 3. How old are you and your wife? 4. Who wears the pants in the house?

That's such a bizarre reason to end a 31 year marriage. So bizarre in fact that one has to wonder if she has some ulterior motive. Prior to her wanting the divorce, how was things in the marriage? Any different behavior etc.?

How old are you and how old is he and how long have you been married and or dating before that? What does he do on the phone? Work? Social Media? Have you raised the issue of the phone before? If so, what did he do or say? In the meantime, one suggestion may be the following: My wife and I have a family meeting scheduled every two weeks, where we set aside time to talk about things that we like, things we'd like to change about ourselves and things that bother us. Having a specific time and place set aside for bringing up issues that concern you, means you don't have to 'nag' at inopportune times.

In the study you cited, the following excerpt below lists the conflicts of interest in the study, which is always a fascinating read when it comes to these 'studies' that are thrown around on the internet. As you'll see most of the authors have received funding from either the NIH, or the pharmaceutical industry directly: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Jason P. Block, Christopher B. Forrest, Grace M. Lee, and Thomas W. Carton report support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as part of the Researching COVID to Enhance Recovery (RECOVER) program. Nidhi Ghildayal reports NIH funding for a postdoctoral position. Michael D. Kappelman reports grants from NIH, PCORI, Helmsley Trust, Abbvie, Arenapharm, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celtrion, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen (a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Takeda) and consulting fees from Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, and Pfizer; payment for service on a data safety monitoring board for Eli Lilly, and payment for service on the editorial board of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. Kenneth H. Mayer reports grant support from NIH’s COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Network for a Phase III AstraZeneca SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trial. Matthew E. Oster reports institutional support from NIH’s National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. No other potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Show me where I claimed that death = non-existence.

Ah, you think I wouldn't notice you leaving 'eternal' out of the above statement? So you're pretending now that any conscious torment at any point in time is sufficient to make your case, eh? Sneaky! But you are of course, 100% correct in that I don't find your arguments convincing, because they not just weak, they're also dishonest. The only reason you quoted the parable of Lazarus is because given a shallow, face-value glance it looks like it supports your doctrine of eternal conscious torment. It's got fire, it's got suffering, so to the intellectually lazy and sloppy reader who is fine with outsourcing their bible study to John MacArthur or GotQuestions.org while calling others 'humanists', that is, as you say, 'good enough'. The fact that it takes place prior to judgement day and thus has no relevance to the question of what happens to the unsaved after judgement, is an inconvenient truth which you must ignore, and instead of being honest and admitting that, you shamelessly hurl false accusations at those who have a different viewpoint. But, as you may have noticed, I don't let people get away with that sort of thing.

@enoob57 Your response consists of 3 parts. Part 1 appears to be just strawman arguments about what I'm claiming, what death is, and the usual bold assertions that Eternal Conscious Torment is the truth, as if it would come as a surprise to me that you believe what you claim you believe. You do offer Matthew 25:41 as proof of eternal conscious torment. This verse refers to the fire being eternal though, not the beings thrown into it. 'Eternal fire' is no more proof of the eternal deathless burning as drowning someone in an eternal sea would prove an eternal deathless drowning. So just a basic understanding of English is sufficient to see that the verse doesn't actually say what you claim it says. There is not a single verse in all of scripture that explicitly states that the unsaved are immortal, but there are plenty of verses stating explicitly that immortality is only given to the saved. Refer once more to John 3:16, which you've ignored. But furthermore, 'eternal fire' is a term used elsewhere in scripture so we can use scripture to interpret scripture Jude 4 mentions the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities as an example of what undergoing punishment of eternal fire looks like. Jud 4: just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Are the cities burning to this day? Nope. Are the cities everlasting? Nope. So it seems safe to conclude Jude and Matthew are not teaching us about eternal conscious torment, but are instead using a term referring to fire from heaven having an eternal source. This eternal fire will destroy the wicked like it destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Part 2 of your post involved sharing the opinions of traditionalist theologian John MacArthur. It's always fascinating to me that it's usually the traditionalists who, without fail, are the first ones to appeal to human authorities when it comes to defending eternal conscious torment. The same people who are also the first to accuse those who disagree with them of 'humanism', 'dogmatism' or 'human-centredmess' etc. Quoting a traditionalist scholar in a debate on traditionalism is about as useful as quoting an Islamic scholar on the veracity of Islam. It's only impressive if you're the sort of person that's impressed by counting scholars who agree with you. Part 3 of your response is a shotgun approach where you're just throwning out every eternal conscious torment prooftext you can find. None of these really offer any support for your claims about Luke 16 though, it's mostly just an exercise in question-begging at this stage. You began by offering Luke 16 as a prooftext for eternal conscious torment, but now that that hasn't worked out, you're offering up other prooftexts for Eternal Conscious Torment to justify your original reading of Eternal Conscious Torment into Luke 16. This is the problem with the Eternal Conscious Torment view as a whole. It's based on bad exegesis of a handful of 'prooftexts' propped by dogmatism and appeals to scholarly authority. Any single one of the 'prooftexts' are too weak and too far a stretch to support the doctrine, so defenders of Eternal Conscious Torment must quickly hop from Luke 16 to Matt 25 to Rev 14 like a toad on a lily pads, taking care not to linger too long on any single one lest they sink. The one direct response you did offer though, and I commend you on that is were I quoted Rev 21:4 Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. You stated: The problem with that claim though is that Revelation 21:4 doesn't simply say that the unsaved as a group needn't worry about sorrow or death. Instead Revelation states that death and sorrow will be 'NO MORE'. It states that there is a new heaven and a new earth and the former things are gone. So making it about groups of people is once again reading things that aren't there. But there's a broader point to be made: According to your view death, sorrow, sin and evil are not in fact dealt with at all. They're simply relegated to some dark corner of the universe. According to eternal conscious torment the unsaved are immortal, and indestructible, and God can do nothing but rage against them, while they keep on sinning and doing evil forever. According to you God cannot eliminate evil. God can merely quarantine it. But the good news is that you're wrong and so are the scholars like John MacArthur you've entrusted your beliefs to. The One who abhors evil will deal with it. Jesus hasn't merely eluded death, He has conquered it!

Revelation 20:11-14 does not say what you claim it says. It clearly states that death and hades delivered up the dead which were in them. So even if Lazarus was tormented until the day of judgement, that is still prior to the day of judgement. So contrary to what you're asserting, the very prooftexts that you've offered supports my view and not yours, which is that Luke 16 is not a description of the final state of the wicked, but at best an interim state where the wicked dead await final judgement. But Revelation goes further stating that death and hades will be thrown into the lake of fire, after which they are found no more. Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. Moreover, the interpreting Angel in John's vision clearly interprets the symbol of the lake of fire as referring to the second death. Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Which of course is confirmed by hundreds of texts stating that the result of sin is death, here's but two examples: Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life So instead of just lazily reading 'fire' in Luke 16 and 'fire' in Revelation 20 and concluding 'eternal conscious fiery torment' while totally ignoring context or genre and at the same time falsely labelling those who disagree with you 'humanists', try to actually read what John and Luke have written. But at least you've responded this time, so thanks for that.

Ok, thanks for the clarification and I totally agree with that. There are many people who hold that the ultimate state is a disembodied state (and that the physical is profane). There's plenty of scriptural evidence to the contrary to such a view, which you have provided I guess I'm still not sure what makes a Theographical place different from say, the world we live in now? If you hold that human beings on earth are a combination of physical embodiment as well as spirit, and the unsaved in hell will also be physical embodied, but have a spiritual aspect, then what makes a Theographical place different from a non-Theographical place. Can you offer an example of a non-Theographical place?

Do you not believe in a bodily resurrection for both the saved and the unsaved, then? Or am I misunderstanding the distinction between a divine place versus a natural place?

Like times before you've completely ignored versus 27-30 The Lazarus parable doesn't contradict annihilationism in the slightest, because: a) It doesn't depict the fate of the wicked after judgement day. We know this because Lazarus wants his brothers who are still alive, to repent. Luke 16:27-30 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. b) It doesn't claim to be the eternal state of the unsaved. Thus, as a prooftext for eternal conscious torment as the final fate of the wicked, the parable is irrelevant because it takes place prior to the Great Day of Judgement It's fascinating that you continually bring up this prooftext and then ignore the above responses to it, only to bring up the prooftext again later when the topic comes up. The great thing about Annihilationism is that doesn't require one to ignore certain Bible versus

I think it's important to understand that Revelation is full of symbolism, and that the visionary elements such as the lake of fire, the beast, the harlot etc. be understood as such rather than a literal narration of what will happen. The angel interprets the lake of fire for us as referring to the second death. So there's no reason so read it any other way. I think it's a mistake to see the 'lake of fire' as a literal place and the 'second death' as symbolic. Other than that I agree with what you said. The overcomers whose names are written in the book of life, will get to live forever, they receive immortality. The unsaved will not be immortal, they will die a second time. And their death will be permanent, eternal, irrevocable etc.

Hi Michael, I'm definitely not SDA or JW, I'm an evangelical. Describing the death and ultimate destruction of the unsaved as a limited stint, is a strange way to put it. Can a death sentence by hanging, for instance be described as a "limited stint at the end of a rope?" The punishment of the unsaved is death, and that death is permanent. What do you mean by 'theographical place'? I've never heard that term before. When you say 'permanently resides, along with the things that give Him cause for Wrath': are you saying that God is not capable of destroying that which causes Him wrath, but must instead relegate such things to a dark corner of His creation? What does it mean for a fire to consume something?

As an annihilationist I find people tend to overcomplicate the Bible a great deal. The second death is simply dying a second time. Nothing more nothing less. The trajectory for the saved would be: Birth -> Salvation -> Death -> Resurrection -> Eternal life The trajectory for the unsaved would be: Birth -> No salvation -> Death -> Resurrection -> Judgement -> Condemnation -> Death (again and permanent this time) This understanding is simple enough that a child can understand it, and it comports perfectly with what the Bible teaches. The Lake of fire that John saw in the vision is simply a symbolic representation of the second and final death, in the same way that for instance, the harlot that John saw in the vision is a symbolic representation of Mystery Babylon.

I'll state once more what I believe so that there is no confusion. I believe that God will slay the wicked at the final judgement. They will be executed, as simple as that. What exists of them after this execution, whether it be lifeless inanimate soul debris, piles of smouldering ashes, decaying corpses, lifeless blobs ectoplasm, heaps of dust or what have you, is completely immaterial to me. What a man can do to another man when he kills that other man, this is what I believe God will do to both the bodies and the souls of the wicked. Mat_10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." As such I do not claim cessation of existence of the wicked. I claim cessation of life for the wicked and eternal life for the saved.

Perhaps you should engage with the argument I'm actually making, instead of swinging at a straw-man. Show me one instance where I argued 'cessation of existence'? Just one. I have always maintained that the unsaved will be executed and that immortality is a gift given only to the saved, and I have corrected you many times when you misrepresented my case. But I understand why you're avoiding talking about life and death, because you know how many scriptures there are that say the unsaved will be killed. Instead you insist on pretending that I'm arguing that the unsaved will simply cease to exist, because straw-men are easy to defeat. The longer you persist in avoiding the arguments I'm actually making the more you're showing a lack of substance behind all the bravado. Life is all about choices, so you're welcome to either engage with the points I'm actually making thereby showing yourself to be an honest and gracious opponent and I would gladly answer where I can, or You can pretend to have a disagreement with an imaginary opponent who isn't part of this discussion.

Where does scripture teach that both the saved and the unsaved have immortality? Mat_10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Rom_2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 1Co_15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 1Co_15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." 1Ti_6:16 who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion. Amen. 2Ti_1:10 and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, Eternal life, immortality, life everlasting, are gifts given only to the saved.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus has no bearing on the final state of the wicked. It is about Sheol/Hades as clearly evidenced by the fact that the rich man's brothers are still alive. No, matthew 25:46 says eternal punishment. No mention of eternal torture in that verse at all. The saved get eternal life, the unsaved get a punishment which is the opposite is eternal life. What is the opposite of immortality? Death! "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

My apologies for only responding now, I've had a busy week. Something that I find interesting about this whole discussion is how readily proponents of eternal conscious torment are willing to accuse those who disagree with them of putting their personal beliefs above that of scripture, even though they do not know anything about their opponents or how they came to their beliefs. I used to be an ardent eternal conscious torment supporter because I've been involved in apologetics for quite some time, but I have studied the subject and have found that the scriptural evidence in favour of Conditional Immortality overwhelming. In terms of there being too many scriptures that support eternal conscious torment, I have found just the opposite. There are only about 5 or 6 prooftexts for eternal conscious torment and when read against the biblical context virtually every single one of them provides stronger support for Conditional Immortality. The often quoted worms not dying and unquenchable fire clearly refers to the slaughtered wicked's corpses being consumed. Jesus presents two options eternal life for the saved, and eternal punishment for the unsaved. The verse juxtaposes eternal life against the punishment which cannot also be eternal life for the wicked (just in a different location), and the bible clearly states what the eternal punishment is, it is death/destruction/perishing/ like chaff being burnt up. As for the best proof texts for eternal conscious torment, these are taking apocalyptic symbols literally, while ignoring the fact that the interpreting angel informs John what these dream visions mean, they mean the second death, where the risen wicked will die a second time. Besides the handful of proof-texts, eternal conscious torment relies on supporting beliefs that are assumed a priori, but have have no basis in scripture at all, such as that the unsaved are immortal (Platonism), that death = separation (Also Platonism), that crimes against an infinite God require infinite punishment (Acquinas) or that the wicked keep on sinning in hell, implying that God, who abhors sin, has somehow ensured that it would go on forever? Again, not a single one of these supporting doctrines of eternal conscious torment have any basis in scripture whatsoever. Compare that to the every verse that depicts in plain language the death of the wicked, that they would perish, that they would go extinct, worms eating corpses, fire laying waste to God's enemies, wide is the way that leads to destruction, the unsaved burnt like chaff, etc. Not to mention, the sacrifice of Jesus, where Jesus took the punishment of death on our behalf, and the physical resurrection proving that death had been conquered. etc. etc. The mere fact that the Bible describes death as the final enemy to be destroyed is in itself a very strong case for Conditional Immortality, is it not? So, sure one could make accusations about personal beliefs- or bias over scripture to shut down an opponent, just because one doesn't like what they believe, doesn't that in itself show an irrational bias?

No, YOU made the claim that I didn't address your claim that somehow 2Pe 2:6 is about Sheol. You said "This needs to be addressed by you". I responded that I did address it, because I asked you what exegetical warrant you have for making it about Sheol, when the verse simply states that Sodom and Gomorrah's extinction by fire serves as an example of what awaits the wicked. I totally agree that you didn't address the verse, because simply imposing another context onto the verse without any justification is just an awful way to read the bible. Ultimately you made the claim that the bible doesn't teach exinction of the wicked and I offered a verse that directly refutes that. Ignoring the extinction part you attempted to make the verse about what happened to the inhabitants after they died in Sheol, but the verse couldn't be clearer that the extinction of Sodom and Gomorah is the example, and not what you might imagine happened to them in Sheol. I have no idea what you're on about here. Scripture should dictate what attributes of God are shared by mankind under the term Imago Dei. As I said, you cannot simply pick an attribute that God has, and apply it to people using the Imago Dei as a kind of literary wildcard. Otherwise one can make all sorts of absurd claims using Imago Dei as the glue to hold bad arguments together, for instance: "People tell lies, therefore God tells lies, because man is made in God's image." See the problem? If you going to argue that Imago Dei means immortality, then we need to test that against scripture and there's a ton of scripture showing that God alone is immortal and that immortality is a gift given only to the saved. Yes, and the plain meaning of the words 'second death' should clue you in that we're talking here about the second time the unsaved will die, this time permanently. Nope, this idea seems to have originated with Platonism and became part of mainstream Christianity through Tertullian and Augustine who incorporated Plato's idea into mainstream Christianity in the 5th century. There is no scriptural evidence to suggest that death means 'separation from God'. "And they are right, Simmias, in saying this, with the exception of the words “They have found them out”; for they have not found out what is the nature of this death which the true philosopher desires, or how he deserves or desires death. But let us leave them and have a word with ourselves: Do we believe that there is such a thing as death? To be sure, replied Simmias. And is this anything but the separation of soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation when the soul exists in herself, and is parted from the body and the body is parted from the soul—that is death?" - Plato's Phaeo 61-64 (http://www.bartleby.com/2/1/31.html) As to Augustines fondness of Plato: “The utterance of Plato, the most pure and bright in all philosophy, scattering the clouds of error . . .” - Augustine of Hippo Tertullian on Plato: "One may no doubt be wise in the things of God, even from one’s natural powers, but only in witness to the truth, not in maintenance of error; (only) when one acts in accordance with, not in opposition to, the divine dispensation. For some things are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, for instance , is held by many; the knowledge of our God is possessed by all. I may use, therefore, the opinion of a Plato, when he declares, ' Every soul is immortal'" There is simply no scriptural justification to replace the words, death, desctruction, perishing, ashes to ashes, returning to dust, corpses, slaughter, extinction etc. wherever they're encountered in scripture with Plato's separationist definition of death. Nope, I have never argued 'cessation of existence'. My contention is that the unsaved will be executed, in other words cessation of life. Whether their corpses exist after judgement is immaterial to me. To me the issue is whether the unsaved live forever in torment, or whether they are executed. yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that I believe the bible teaches that the unsaved are executed. The wages of sin is death.

No sure what your point is? I've stated that there is no scriptural basis for the idea that what Jesus was referring to was the fires' in Gehenna's duration and not the dead bodies, but that some theologians speculated that. Obviously the theologian who wrote the commentary above is one of those speculating that the fires refer to eternal torment. Are we discussing what the Bible teaches or what theologians teach, because I'm happy to concede that many theologians teach eternal conscious torment. I just happen to think they're wrong.

No, I have answered that you cannot simple say "because God is immortal doesn't mean man is immortal because Imago Dei" The contention of this discussion is eternal torment or eternal death. My stance is that the unsaved will be executed, and I have as yet seen no evidence to show that the unsaved will live forever (i.e. immortality) in torment.