ProphecyKid

Nope. The OT does not teach that all was lost of you violated the law. That is rediculous. King David violated the law many times but he was saved wasn't he? The Idea that anybody had to keep the law perfectly to be saved is something that the Pharisees came up with and tried to impose upon the people. God never taught that. Salvation has always been through Grace. God has a standard for us to live by, not in order to get Salvation but because we are his people which means we should live Godly lives. God is pleased when we obey his laws out of love for him and for our neighbours. Its not about being saved.

Right. Look at this scripture too. Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Of course this is figurative language. Jesus Christ is not going to be literally separating sheep from goats.

Yeah but there's a fine line when describing parables with lessons/fate in this life vs lessons in the afterlife, using words and such. Sow/seed/field/plant are lessons about our spiritual nature in this life. Hell/torment/agony in fire/died/angels carried him describe lessons/fate in the afterlife. Jesus could of used any kind of words to get his point across. God vs Money debate. I don't understand why he had to resort to words describing the afterlife to get his point across, that you cannot serve both God and money. Jesus could of described the parable in a completely different way that has nothing to do with agony/hell/torment, words describing the afterlife. That's what confuses a lot of people. I think this is the only parable Jesus used that describes the afterlife. But it is a parable none the less and if you take it literally it would not be consistent with what so much of the bible says about the state of the dead. But I do take the afterlife literally and words describing it, just like I take Sow/seed/field/plant literally to describe this life. So what you're saying is I shouldn't take the lessons about Sow/seed/field/plant literally? It is all words describing our spiritual nature, so we HAVE to take it literally. If it's not consistent with what the Bible says about the dead, then why did Jesus use those words. This story is not about the afterlife. Jesus is not describing the afterlife. The story illustrates a point. The reason why the rich man was speaking to Lazarus helps to illustrate the point of the story and not to show that people who die go to hell and can speak to people who die and go to Abraham's Bosom. The reason they both die in the story is to show what their end shall be as opposed to how they are considered on earth. It is all necessary to illustrate the point. Like I said, look at the story in the context of the other parables surrounding it. How does Jesus go from talking about being a good steward and the result of being an unjust steward, to a theological lesson on the state of the dead. And furthermore, there is absolutely no biblical proof that the Jews believed that at death one either goes to hell or Abraham's bosom. So after this, the pharisees and no one else challenged him concerning this because they know he wasn't actually talking about the state of the dead. And we all know how the pharisees were quick to try to corner Jesus on anything he did or said wrong according to their beliefs and their understanding of the law and the prophets.

Yeah but there's a fine line when describing parables with lessons/fate in this life vs lessons in the afterlife, using words and such. Sow/seed/field/plant are lessons about our spiritual nature in this life. Hell/torment/agony in fire/died/angels carried him describe lessons/fate in the afterlife. Jesus could of used any kind of words to get his point across. God vs Money debate. I don't understand why he had to resort to words describing the afterlife to get his point across, that you cannot serve both God and money. Jesus could of described the parable in a completely different way that has nothing to do with agony/hell/torment, words describing the afterlife. That's what confuses a lot of people. I think this is the only parable Jesus used that describes the afterlife. But it is a parable none the less and if you take it literally it would not be consistent with what so much of the bible says about the state of the dead.

Then what are the reasons behind post#4, words describing the afterlife. What does hell, died, angels carried him, buried, torment, agony in fire mean in Luke 16 here if it doesn't describe the afterlife.. That's like asking the question why did Jesus in the parable of the sower and the seed use words like sow, seed, field and plant if he was not telling us that we should go out and become farmers. If that's the story being used to portray the message, the appropriate terms obviously have to be used. That doesn't mean the story is to be taken literally.

Yes, they did believe in going to hell. The Jewish theology of the first century was not shaped by the Bible alone. Not at all, they did not believe in hell as many of us believe as in hell being a place of torment. They believe that Sheol (hell) was he place of the dead or the grave.

A parable is never an actual story or else it would be a true story, not a parable. If you take the parable of the rich man and lazarus literally you run into so many problems. You have a guy who is in torment, burning yet he can speak and his body parts seem in tact, his tongue is is working, talking to father Abraham in heaven. No one at that time believed that when a man dies he goes to heaven or hell. You can't find a single scripture in he old testament that you can twist to support that, they clearly did not believe that. And this story is all happening before the judgement. So many issues if you take this parable as being lieral.

This parable is very much misunderstood. People use this parable to validate their beliefs instead of trying to realize what the parable is about. In all of Jesus' parables, the story was to illustrate a deeper spiritual point and not the actual story of the parable. For instance, in the parable where the employer had people work for him and some of his workers started earlier, some started later and some very late and at the end of the day he gave each one of them the same amount of money. I heard an anchor on Fox News use that parable to try to say that this parable shows that the Employer has ever right to pay any amount he chooses regardless of the time his workers have worked and unions and so are not needed. Well this parable is the same thing. This parable was not to show us what happens when a man dies. Jesus had just finished telling a parable about a steward who was unjust and wasted the goods given to him. This parable is also similar. There is a rich man here, who felt like he had everything, and was selfish, self sufficient and did not want to share. Then you have the poor man who had a desire for just a little bit of food and was begging to be fed. The rich man is a representation of the Jewish Nation who were blessed with the gospel and who initially were supposed to convert the nations around them. Instead they got self righteous and felt the gospel was only for them and no one else. The poor man represented the gentile nations at that time. Here is the account of when a gentile woman approached Jesus: Mat 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. Mat 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mat 15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. Mat 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs. Mat 15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table. Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. This is how the Jews regarded the gentiles, as dogs and so with the Samaritan woman Jesus only referred to her that way because that is how the Jews saw the gentiles. And that phrase of eating the crumbs which fall from the table apply to both the gentile woman and the poor man Lazarus. In this parable, Lazarus represents the gentiles who were poor because they did not have the gospel that the rich man had but yet had a strong desire for it, while the rich man had the wrong attitude. Then when they die, who is in Abraham's Bosom. The Bosom is a indicator of closeness, of family. In other words, the true seed of Abraham is this case, is Lazarus because as the bible says, if any man be in Christ he is Abraham's seed. Lazarus exhibited the right character and had a genuine heart as opposed to the Jews who were rich in knowledge but lacked any sincerity. Gal_3:29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Now here what the rich man says: Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. The Jewish nation had Moses and the Prophets or the law and the prophets, yet they were missing the mark badly and as Paul says, the gospel had to go to a nation bearing the fruits since Israel had rejected God. Rich in the knowledge of the scripture but totally missed the point. That's what the parable is talking about. How the nation of Israel who took so much pride in their heritage as being the descendants of Abraham, could spiritually be so far away from Abraham and would lose salvation.

Well DRS81, this is a good question. However if prophesy is an open subject, think of what it would be like if OSAS, homosexuality or even Barack Obama was listed as a open Topic. The recent confusion was caused by a now locked topic, Prophecy of anti-Christ. When I read it, I was stunned but I didn't answer it right away, I went to scripture. I found the poster to be in great error; his post was based in large part by quoting from Daniel on a prophesy that Daniel saw. However even Daniel couldn't figure it out and he prayed and received an answer from Gabriel. So a poster was re-interpreting and misinterpreting what Gabriel already explained starting at Daniel 9:20. By the time I was ready to post, the post was locked. I sent my warning to a moderator who told me the topic was locked. Thinking I was misinterpreted, I sent the message to quite a few moderators and I need to add myself to your topic of pulling "my hair out." In the final analysis and more directly to your topic, if Christians can't agree on what is stated and has happened in scripture, what do you expect from something that is coded and has not happened? Yet, to me it shows a great concern about the truth and that is good. As long as your focused on scripture it's better than pulling your hair out over the world. Also, there is a triple blessing for those who read Revelations. Oh, I almost forgot in terms of the Christ and Jewish issue that your topic slanted towards think about Israel becoming a state, and God's promises to save the Jews. That is indeed Gospel - good news. Oak I think it's those preterism and futurism and denominations and yada yada yada..... I do have more gray hairs, and I don't even have kids. lol. Agreed

So you agree with me, no nonbelievers in the millennium? Cool!! As long as you admit that there will be nonChristians in the millennium. Atheists/nonbelievers/nonchristians are three different names describing the same person, so yes. No, that is not true. Not all nonChristians are atheists. I am saying that there will be nonChristians, people who will not receive Jesus alive during the millennium. So I don't know that you and I agree. I believe there will be unsaved people alive during the entire milliennium. Atheists and nonchristians are the same people. Their unbelief is what makes them the same. Unbelief is unbelief. That;s pretty much my point. You either believe or you don't.

I don't think Satan was fooled. He wanted the Jewish Messiah dead and he did everything he could to make that happen. Why would he have Judas betray Jesus and get him arrested? He thought that if the Messiah was killed then he would have foiled God's plan, but it was God's plan all the time to sacrifice his own son. Satan has since then tried to fool people into not accepting Jesus, even going so far as to create the false religion of Islam to deny Jesus' sacrifice and subsequent resurrection, and to intimidate Christians (and anybody else whilst he's at it) into converting to Islam. He has also tried everything he can to destroy the Jews, culminating in the Nazi holocaust (the Final Solution). If he wipes out the bloodline of the Jews then they can't return to Jerusalem and set up the Holy temple in preparation for Jesus' return. God knows who the descendants of David are, even if the Jews themselves don't. Of course, Satan failed here too because Israel has been reformed, so now he is trying to destroy Israel and persecute any last remaining Jews who are not in Israel. Hence the growing rise in antisemitism in Europe and the rest of the World. He will have his last chance at capturing as many souls as he can when he rules from Jerusalem during the Tribulation, but he knows the time is short because he will only have seven years in which to do this. When he goes to his fate he wants to bring down as many as possible and take them with him. I agree wtih you that he was fooled. To me it is either he was fooled or he was trying to help. If Satan knew exactly what would happen, then why would he play along to bring to pass the salvation of the human race when he would like to destroy as much of us as possible. He could not have known and so he was fooled.

See now this is the problem you run into when you start saying more than what the bible says. The bible has always maintained that there are only 2 groups of people and when Jesus comes again there will only be two groups. It is either you are saved or lost. But when we start so segment people and say well Atheist would be lost but wont be alive for the millenium, then another group would be alive for it but would then be lost at the end, and then another group would go through it and convert and all these assumptions, it makes the whole thing confusing.

What do you think? Let's discuss. God bless I have been saying almost the exact same thing for years. There are basically 3 types of laws. 1. The laws pertaining to the office of the Levitical Priests. These laws don't apply today because they were only intended to continue till the cross. 2. Laws of separation. These were laws that showed Israel was a separate people from the idol worshipping gentile nations around them. These laws don't apply to us because after the cross, the gentile believers are engrafted into the same spiritual tree as the Jews. We are adopted Jews, and since we are no longer unclean through faith in Christ, laws of separation don't apply. 3. Moral laws. These reflect God's standards, and they do apply to us today. That is how I break them down. A separate issue is one of penalties for disobedience. Israel was governed by the law of Moses, and that meant to enforce the laws, there had to be penalties. The penalties don't apply today. We don't have to execute adulterers, homosexuals and witches, for an example. My only disagreement with you is on what you term the laws of seperation. I don't agree that God gave them laws just because he wanted them to be seperate. I don't see why that would be a main reason for God giving any set of laws. Now the laws could have made them seperate as a result, but I cant see how it could be the initial purpose. What I mean is laws like circumcision. This was given to show Israel was a separate people. Laws of unclean foods were for the same purpose. You can see this in Acts and Peter's vision. That is where the purpose of these laws are shown. No I disagree. Circumcision had a spiritual meaning behind it. Speaking of Abraham the bible says: Rom 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: Circumcision was not just to show a difference. God doesn't let people just do things without any meaning just to make them different. And when it comes to the dietary laws, remember that back in the days of Noah there were clean and unclean animals. God would not want them to have a different diet if it would not be of benefit to them, if the only reason was to make them different. God told them that if they followed his laws, the diseases that the Egyptians get, they would not get them and scientific research shows that the foods labelled unclean in the bible retain a much higher level of toxins in their bodies as opposed to the foods labelled clean. The foods labelled clean are lower down in the food chain and have better systems of elimination such as a cow with 4 stomachs. So you can't just reduce it to being separate.

What do you think? Let's discuss. God bless I have been saying almost the exact same thing for years. There are basically 3 types of laws. 1. The laws pertaining to the office of the Levitical Priests. These laws don't apply today because they were only intended to continue till the cross. 2. Laws of separation. These were laws that showed Israel was a separate people from the idol worshipping gentile nations around them. These laws don't apply to us because after the cross, the gentile believers are engrafted into the same spiritual tree as the Jews. We are adopted Jews, and since we are no longer unclean through faith in Christ, laws of separation don't apply. 3. Moral laws. These reflect God's standards, and they do apply to us today. That is how I break them down. A separate issue is one of penalties for disobedience. Israel was governed by the law of Moses, and that meant to enforce the laws, there had to be penalties. The penalties don't apply today. We don't have to execute adulterers, homosexuals and witches, for an example. My only disagreement with you is on what you term the laws of seperation. I don't agree that God gave them laws just because he wanted them to be seperate. I don't see why that would be a main reason for God giving any set of laws. Now the laws could have made them seperate as a result, but I cant see how it could be the initial purpose.

Well firstly it is not really God's fault, it is man's fault. And also if you believe that the devil is a sly old fox, then he would have his preachers pretending to be Christians preaching a lot of falsehood concerning prophecy and confusing the issue making it hard for the person who really wants to understand the truth to understand. But even before that, there is a special reason why the book of revelation was written that way. Remember John was on the Isle of Patmos when he got these visions and wrote what he saw and had to give it to the Romans for request they send it out for him. Now if John had actually named names, their name would have been called and they most likely would have destroyed the writings. But to them when they see all these things about beasts and dragons, they laughed and mocked it and thought John had gone mad, so they gladly sent it out.

Psa 37:10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. Psa 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away. Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Mal 4:2 But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts. Mat_10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. They cease to exist. Ashes is what is left after something cannot burn anymore.

The New Covenant is not the Mosaic covenant. To be under the Mosaic covenant requires ritual physical circumcision. To be under the New Covenant requires the indwelling Holy Spirit who circumcises the heart. What Paul meant was the physical circumcision means nothing under the New Covenant. Physical circumcision does not save a person, give the indwelling Holy Spirit, or means a person has a circumcised heart. At that same time, a person who is not physicall ritually circumcised, does not mean they are not saved, indwelt, or has a circumcised heart. I totally agree with that. So you agree that it was a part of Moses law but here Paul contrasts circumcision with the commandments of God, showing a difference. And again the scripture clearly shows a difference being made between God's commandments written with his own finger and what Moses wrote in his book. So how can we then say there is no difference and they all the same.

Deu 10:4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. Deu 10:5 And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me. Deu 31:24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, Deu 31:25 That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, Deu 31:26 Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. God's law was place in the ark, in fact under the mercy seat. Moses Book of the law was place on the side of the ark. How can anyone say they were all one in the same. If all the law is one and the same then what does Paul mean here: 1Co 7:19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Wasn't circumcision a part of Moses law?

What do you think? Let's discuss. God bless, GE I think this is a very good synopsis of the different kind of laws that were given. When Jesus came and was on the earth the woman caught in adultery did sin according to the Moral Law, and was supposed to be stoned according to Moses law, more specifically the civil law, but Jesus overturned this law. Jesus did not say the woman did not sin, but he emphasized forgiveness over punishment. Those civil laws that the pharisees were trying to bring the people under were only for a time. Let me also comment on the civil law. If you notice, David nor Bathsheba was not stoned after they committed adultery and according to Leviticus, they were both to be stoned. The reason this did not happen goes back to the whole purpose of the civil laws. Israel in the wilderness had no King. They only had the prophet Moses and Moses had to be the prophet, priest and King at that time. God therefore gave Moses laws to be able to manage the children of Israel as a civil society. There were no prisons. God had to dictate to Moses what would happen if someone killed their brother. Saying thou shalt not kill was not enough. But what happened when Israel got a King? Well the king then dictates civil law. He says what the penalty is for someone who kills or steals and God respects the wishes of the people who choose leaders to make these laws. Therefore, the civil laws that governed Israel under Moses was no longer necessary once Israel started having Kings. Therefore, David and Bathsheba did not have to be stoned for their sin. And then when you go back to the Jews in the time of Jesus, they were under Roman rule. Rome gave them liberty to practice their religion and so they went back to all the laws of Moses and tried to implement them. They were not even dong it properly because they were supposed to bring the man for stoning as well. So indeed this is an accurate depiction of the types of laws.

The levitical priesthood was only a foreshadow of what Christ had to do for us. The earthly high priest was a representation of Jesus Christ who is now our high priest ministering in the heavenly sanctuary and the animals that were sacrificed were only a shadow of the sacrifice of Christ. It all comes back to Christ. The blood of those bulls and goats represented the blood of Christ. Animals sacrifices were being done since before Moses. Abraham did it, Cain and Abel did it. Noah did it. The bible says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission. So before Jesus Christ had actually shed his blood, it was necessary to have these sacrifices. Understand, that sacrificing a lamb for your sin simply means that that lamb is taking your place, since you are the only who is supposed to die. So when Jesus shed his blood, he did it for us, once and for all so that we would not have to shed ours. So Grace has always existed because grace is the remedy for sin. Grace is saying that you are not going to pay the price for your sin, your offense is being removed and overlooked. This happened in the OT, the NT and will always happen. Salvation can only be by grace.

Correct me if I am wrong but Jesus DIED on the cross and paid for our sins so that we wouldn't have to. He took out penalty for us, and that wasn't our physical natural death or the first death. If the penalty Jesus had to take on our behalf was death, meaning he had to die, he had to give up the ghost and not suffer torment for eternity, then how is it that those who will be lost and would have to then pay the penalty for their own sins would have to suffer for eternity, if Jesus did not have to do that to pay for our sins?

Maybe, or maybe the definition of death (θάνατος) in Rom 6:23 needs to be understood. Death, in scripture, is never an end, that is an entirely pagan concept. No, rather death is always a separation, in spiritual death we are separated from God, in physical death we are separated from our bodies and in eternal death we are separated from the goodness and mercy of God forever. Life, therefore, as the opposite of death is about union, union of body and soul, union with God. Hence the contrast Paul makes in Rom 6:23 is entirely with the biblical teaching of eternal punishment. Man, death is the opposite of life. Again literary gymnastics because now you have to define death as being not the end. It is not literary gymnastics to take the time and effort to properly define words. It is evident from the word of God that death is an end, think for example of Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, (NKJ) Now if death was an end, how could there be anything after it? No, clearly death is not equal to extinction or ceasing to be. Or what about 2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. ( NKJ) here we see that death (physical) is a separation. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ( NKJ). All words have a semantic range, in English the term perish has two main meanings, it means to be either destroyed or ruined, think for example of rubber, rubber perishes by which we mean it is ruined and useless, not that it has ceased to exist. Now the Greek word that uses is ἀπόλλυμι and that has an even wider semantic range then the English translation, it can mean to be lost, that is especially true when it used in the middle voice as John uses it here. As for Destroy, again the dictionary is our friend - the primary meaning for destroy is also ruin. For example we talk of destroying someones reputation, and when we do we are not saying that they no longer have a good reputation. rather we are saying that the reputation is no longer good but bad. ​I believe I have already addressed that sufficiently through a careful definition of the words we are using, definitions drawn straight out dictionaries and lexicons. Its a shame that all the plain words of the english language need to take on new meanings in order to support your view. Death doesn't mean the end, destroy doesn't mean to finish, perish doesn't mean to cease to exist. Well you can believe that if you want. Mal 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. Do you know what stubble is? Mal 4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts. Do you know how ashes are formed?

I don't think the disciples knew what they were saying, but there were people outside who heard them, and they understood. It would be like me speaking spanish (not knowing spanish) and someone who is spanish is nearby to hear. If this were the case, then the act of speaking in tongues was not for me, it was for those who heard it. I really can't see how the disciples could not know what they were saying. See I believe there is a difference between speaking in tongues and having the gift of tongues. The disciples were given the gift of tongues and thus I believe they had the ability to speak what they needed to speak in other tongues. A tongue in a language, so speaking in tongues could be someone who can speak in many different languages that they have previously learned.

I think the question is whether the person who speaks in tongues knows what he is saying or not. It is believe that speaking in tongues is a personal prayer language that only God understands but the evidence for this in the bible isn't really there. In Acts 2, when the gifts of tongues was poured out for the first time, it does appear that the disciples knew what they were saying. So to address Reformed Baptist's question. I believe the tongue is unknown to those who are listening but not to the speaker. There is no instance in the scripture where you could find the holy spirit taking control of an individual and causing them to do or speak things that they do not have any knowledge of or any control of. Only demon possession works like that.

Maybe, or maybe the definition of death (θάνατος) in Rom 6:23 needs to be understood. Death, in scripture, is never an end, that is an entirely pagan concept. No, rather death is always a separation, in spiritual death we are separated from God, in physical death we are separated from our bodies and in eternal death we are separated from the goodness and mercy of God forever. Life, therefore, as the opposite of death is about union, union of body and soul, union with God. Hence the contrast Paul makes in Rom 6:23 is entirely with the biblical teaching of eternal punishment. Man, death is the opposite of life. Again literary gymnastics because now you have to define death as being not the end. Again same question to you. John 3:16 uses the word Perish. How does your definition of death agree with the idea of what it means to Perish. Now you need to define what it means to Perish. Also define what it means to destroy: Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. How can something that is living forever perish or be destroyed?