Still Alive

Agree. I will throw out, though, that I think Jesus was using their own mythology to make his point in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. I don't think it has anything to do with what the fate of the lost is like and probably has more to do with the five brothers, who they are, and what their inclusion in it means.

Don't quote me on this, but I have a "theory" about that. To preface, I believe that nothing is going to happen the way we all have theories about it. Not the rapture or anything else. It's going to surprise us all, in the same way that Jesus surprised the Jews who expected him to come as a conquering king in the fashion of David. My theory is based on the "possibility of universalism": it is possible that those that accept Jesus will be the "government' in the next age, and only they will be able to enter into the new Jerusalem. The rest of mankind will live on the new earth (basically the same planet but with a wiped clean and rebuilt surface). Or something like that. That makes room for the concept of everyone being forgiven and saved, yet there are different levels of punishment an reward. To be clear, this is not my "belief", but It would also not surprise me if something like that is what actually happens. I used to really get into the end times and "what is heaven like" arguments back in the 80's and 90's. I'm way over that now. I just work to make sure my lamp is full of oil and hope the bridegroom scoops me up to the wedding when he arrives. I'll let Him worry about the venue and what band is playing at the reception.

Here you go. It's also in book form, btw. https://www.jewishnotgreek.com/

I beg to differ regarding the immortality of the human soul as well as the meaning of the worm and fire. I highly recommend reading all of the site in my sig below or at least some of it to get a feel. Also, the group, "rethinking hell" in Facebook is an excellent source of info.

Agree, generally. The "proportional judgement" concept, to me, suggests they will eventually be released into eternity with Christ. Otherwise, what's the point? I think the "proportional judgement" concept plays most into universalism. OTOH, I think we try to read too much into a lot of stuff that doesn't make much sense to us. It's just possible that the varying degrees of punishment have to do more with this life than what happens after. OTOH, it could suggest that the concept of "the bigger they are, the harder they fall" plays into the punishment for the lost when they are annihilated. I don't see any room at all any more for ECT. I remember even C.S. Lewis had a hard time with it. I don't remember the exact quote, but it was along the lines of, "if there is one teaching of Christianity I'd really like to be convinced is false it is ECT. From my perspective it doesn't fit the personality and MO of our creator at all. Annihilationism and universalism both do, however. Though I think the former is the message of Jesus. I hope it's the latter, but I think too much scripture is against it.

Yes. Just to clarify, I don't lump Tartarus together with the others, regardless of it's being translated to the same english word. I consider it a bad translation, or at least one I disagree with.

Part of the problem when discussing this with me is that I have a pretty strong bias against the KJV, as well as the word, "hell". I consider the use of the word, even in my preferred version, ESV (created after the discovery of information in the dead sea scrolls and other more recent text sources, I bristle at their use of the word, "hell". But my bias can sometimes blind me to the subtleties of the points others are trying to make. Sorry about that.

I never include Tartarus in the list because the word is used once in the bible, is in a book rife with symbolism, and specifically DOES NOT refer to humans. There is also Sheol, BTW, My understanding is that Sheol and Hades simply mean "the Grave". i.e the body is dead and buried. It's as detailed as the people of the day got with what happens after death. Kinda like how they viewed the stars and planets. Jesus amplified it, as did the writers of the letters in the NT. And Jesus never said "hell". He said Gehenna. And it was a real place with a real history. He used it as an example and further amplified by saying that "in this case", those thrown there will not be partially consumed. They will be completely consumed. And once something is consumed, it is gone. And its fate is "eternal". Please keep in mind, this is all just my opinion. But the more I study God's word, pray, and (hopefully) expand my relationship with him, I have a harder and harder time grasping why I ever believed the ECT teaching. I'd even believe universalism first (all are saved to one degree or another). With a lot of this stuff I compare it to arguing pre-, mid-, post- or no-rapture. We'll find out when it happens. Regarding the fate of the lost, all I'm willing to say is that one's condition is eternal life if they are saved. The lost do not enjoy that "status". And I don't see death as a figure of speech. I see it as meaning "dead", and I think Jesus was doing all he could to make it clear by using the Gehenna example. Last thought: The people I spar with that most tenaciously hold on to the ECT message are anti-Christians that hate Christianity. It is their primary weapon against Christianity. Take that arrow out of their quiver and their whole case collapses. It removes the "vinictiveness" of the God of the bible who is supposed to be about love (and love is not earned).

Revelation is a dream and the antichrist and false prophet are not representative of all mankind. It is also all symbolism. Jesus is not literally a lamb, there is no literal man with clay and iron feet, etc. And unlike the ancient Greeks, I don't believe man inherently has an immortal soul. It's why it says in my bible to fear the one that can destroy both flesh and soul (the actual person occupying the flesh) in Gehenna. Matthew 10:28. The annihilation take also matches God's MO regarding how he deals with enemies in the OT. He never tortures anyone after he kills them. They are simply like chess pieces removed from the table. They are gone. However, this life can be and often is torture for his enemies. Death actually ends it. However, I could be wrong. There may be a case that I've not found yet where he does torture someone after death other than in a parable (Lazarus and the rich man)

The interesting part of this, for me is that Jesus use of Gehenna is why I believe the lost are annihilated. After all, He compares their fate to bodies being thrown into this burning pit, where stuff is partially consumed by worms and partially burned, except he clarifies that the worms don't "die" and the fire cannot be "quenched*". i.e. the fire and worms completely consume those thrown into them. They are gone, no longer to exist, except as "ashes" or "worm poop". I believe he uses that analogy to clarify that the lost are "thrown out to be utterly destroyed and extinguished." *An unquenchable fire is not a fire that never goes out. It is a fire you cannot PUT OUT. But an unquenchable fire can go out on its own when it runs out of fuel. Think of a burning building with no fire hydrants around. You can't quench it, but it does go out, eventually - and the building is gone.

Yeah, and how would a person alive hearing Jesus use the word, "Gehenna" have interpreted his meaning, especially when juxtaposed against scripture like John 3:16 (among others). When people really want to dig into it, I just refer them to the link in my tag line. No need for me to reinvent the wheel...

To use WWII as an example, I see this as the "phoney war" period. 2024 is where it gets "interesting", IMO.

My wife's real experience back in the late 70's: She had three children, all under the age of 8. Her husband was dying of leukemia and they had no life insurance. They had recently cancelled it because it was $23 a month and they were young and healthy and really needed the money. After the last visit before he died she was driving away from the hospital and was so mad at God she pulled over to the side of the road and started yelling at God and banging her fists on the steering wheel and dashboard. Suddenly, from the back seat was a clear, audible and calm voice that simply said, "Be at peace, child". She felt like warm water washed over her body and she was completely calm. She put the car in gear and drove home. I think God gets it.

Give it time... My friend said, in Sunday School yesterday, when we were discussing the class members (including my wife) who LITERALLY heard the voice of God in their presence at one time or another, "I REALLY need to hear God's voice." I said to him, in front of the class, "Do you still believe?" He said "yes". I said, than you don't 'really' need to hear His voice." He knew what I was implying and at dinner at his house last night he discussed it with us further. He was really glad I made that point. My wife and I have bonefide miracles in our lives. I've never heard His voice, but he changed my mind at a specific turning point in the late 80's. And it changed my life. For us he is VERY real. We will all see Him soon enough.

Aw shucks! My singular strength here is that even at the age of 70 I remember in public school and college I was the one that would ask the "stupid questions" and, after class, people would come up to me and say, "I'm glad you asked that because I was wondering the same thing but was afraid to ask." Of course, peppered in all of that were some truly stupid questions I did ask.

Regarding your number 2. It's not crazy at all.Everything around us is, basically, empty space. Atoms are, basically, empty space. What we see is only our interpretation of energy. What we touch, smell, hear, etc. is the same thing. And we learned to interpret it from before birth. We touch a table and can feel smooth or rough. Hot or cold. Yet the atoms in our hand and those in the table are not actually touching. We only interpret it so. I really see matter as just a sort of "coagulated energy". But "as far as we're concerned, it's real. C.S. Lewis touched on this concept in "The Great Divorce" when the buss climbs "out of the grass".

I agree with that. However, here is where it gets dicey: At the time 2 Timothy was penned, what would a person alive at the time interpreted "all scripture" to be? There was no new testament, and the primary "scripture" read by the people then, and in that area was the LXX, which contains a lot of books we now ignore. And, of course, they actually quote it verbatum in some places in the NT, and they even quote 1 Enoch, which is considered canon only by the Ethiopian church, IIRC. So why do we not hold up all the books of the LXX as canon? On a side note, the discovery of the dead sea scrolls also really threw a monkey wrench into this.

It's poetry (genesis, that is). And we are reading an English translation. I agree that it pretty clearly says it was the first day in that one verse. But the first day of what? I see it as the first day of the age of man. Who knows how many ages preceded it. Maybe there was an "age of Neanderthal". I'm not saying I believe what I'm writing below, but at least the bible leaves room for the possibility: The earth is like a canvas. A painting is created on it and, eventually, it is whitewashed, and another painting is put over it. And that cycle can be repeated over and over. And on a canvas if you carefully peal back the paint of the "current" painting, you can actually find evidence of the preceding paintings underneath. In the case of the earth, that evidence would be primitive primates, dinosaurs, etc. There is even evidence that the earth had a very different ecology, atmosphere, and/or gravity. Hence the bones of flying creatures that appeared to be 200 lbs or more, well over 35 lbs, which is roughly the current weight limit for flying creatures. So something changed. I take this perspective: The Bible is not a science book, nor does it claim to be, and God doesn't use it to impart 23rd century scientific knowledge. And I think that when one puts oneself into the mindset of primitive man and their "scientific" worldview, it can sometimes slightly - or dramatically - change ones interpretation from what they wrote. A new favorite phrase of mine: As far as we're concerned. e.g. "as far as we're concerned, the earth as we know it in the age of man is 6,000 years old." Though this ball may actually be billions of years old and this is age 5,000, to be followed by another 5,000 ages, on which the bible is silent. Because "as far as we're concerned", and as far as the message of the bible is concerned, that is irrelevant. A subject for another book to come when this age ends and another begins.

I don't agree with any individual or group on every little detail of anything. If I disagree with that statement does that mean that I'm not a Christian? Does it mean I should not be allowed to post on this site? I don't worship the bible. I worship God. And frankly, I've compared the bible to a biography that I read about a woman who I was inspired to get to know. I married her and have had a relationship with her for 25 plus years. How important is this biography for me to better know her? It can apply nuance, but when I've known her intimately and had a positive relationship with her for that time, Should I focus* on the contents of the biography, or on our relationship that continues to grow through communication with each other and our experience together? * I'm not saying the "biography" is irrelevant, but that its primary focus for me was to introduce me to her, and it can sometimes add clarity to aspects of her I still don't fully understand. And first comes the relationship and communication. Second comes the biography.

It gets a bit uncomfortable in Church when I say "I do not believe the bible is the word of God. Rather, I believe it contains the word of God." It's the words of men, inspired by God. And if I want to read the Scripture as mentioned in 2 Timothy, well, that would be the Septuagint and probably 1 Enoch. Yet a lot of that is not contained in any of the common English translations of the bible.

Exactly! I believe it has been preached "...to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people...". But not every single individual. I had a friend just a few days ago admit he was having a crisis in faith because he "realized" that Psalm 91 is a lie. We were able to clear it up. You take much of what the bible says literally at your peril. (don't even get me started on the 6,000 year old earth). And sometimes the issue is not with what it says, but what people interpret it to mean.

I don't take the phrase literally. IMO, it is making a point, and I think that point has been satisfied. There will always be people that have not heard the "full" message and even individuals that have never heard of Jesus. But that doesn't mean the message has not been preached to the "whole world".

That's already happened. Even in North Korea.

I won't have to wait long. I'm almost 70.

Is that a response to something? It looks more like a bible study beginning outline. You posted a bunch of scripture with no commentary other than a single, somewhat cryptic sentence.