#5 Jesus on Hell Matthew 25:31-46

[Wootah]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Verse 46 says they will go away to eternal punishment but the righteous to eternal life.

If 'go away to eternal punishment' means annihilation then why presume 'righteous to eternal life' means eternal life?

There are two eternal destinations, hell and heaven being expressed in verse 46.

Isn't it biased to say eternal punishment is not eternal but eternal life is eternal life?

According to those that believe in annihilation and that the Bible doesn't teach hell, why do they interpret the first half of verse 46 as non-literal and the second half as literally?

[PinSeeker]

All these discussions inevitably, invariably come down to this:
Death, in the Bible, is a state of existence.

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing... (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

If in your dead state of existence you know nothing, you might as well be annihilated.

And I have said, a countless number of times now, and you have no rebuttal to other than "I disagree," is that you take Ecclesiastes 9:5 completely out of it's context and therefore come to an invalid conclusion ~ and really a conclusion completely opposite of the valid conclusion ~ about what Biblical death really is. And that's the point.

Grace and peace to you.

[myth-one.com]

All these discussions inevitably, invariably come down to this:
Death, in the Bible, is a state of existence.

Death is the opposite of life.

If death in the Bible is a state of existence,

then

Life in the Bible is a state of non-existence.

How does that work?

[2timothy316]

And I have said,

And that is why we don't agree with you. We do not recognize as YOU as speaking for God to change what the whole 9th chapter of Ecc plainly says. We do not recognize YOUR definition of context as being correct. Context means: "the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed." The setting of the book of Ecc is not about what you say it is. There is no mention of heaven or eternal torment after death in chapter 9 of Ecc. There is no mention of life after death at all. When YOU add these things to it then YOU are taking Ecc 9:5 and adding ideas to the scriptures that are not there. Did you know that the words torment and torture do not appear in the book of Ecc? Nowhere in Ecc does it say that a dead person is alive, nowhere! Ecc 9:5 says there is no reward for the dead. So that leaves Heaven out as a reward. Yet that is what you keep adding to it.

Do you understand why we can't rely on YOU for truth? It is because of what you lead your explanations with. "I have said". Why should we believe in your additions to the Word of God? The whole life after death doctrine depends on what YOU have said and I for one would not accept any interpretation of scripture where the interpretation depends on man alone.

[PinSeeker]

All these discussions inevitably, invariably come down to this: Death, in the Bible, is a state of existence.

Death is the opposite of life.

Agreed, absolutely, but regarding true death according to the Bible, not regarding existence itself, even conscious existence. The difference is in the manner of that existence, where one will be and what one will experience in that existence, and that will indeed by opposite. The first death is a sleep (which of course is not the same as what you and I do for a few hours each night) and the second death is a permanent being sent away and separation from Jesus and the new heaven and new earth.

If death in the Bible is a state of existence, then life in the Bible is a state of non-existence. How does that work?

Well, it doesn't, but fortunately we don't have to think about ridiculous propositions such as the one you present here. See above.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

And that is why we don't agree with you. We do not recognize as YOU as speaking for God to change what the whole 9th chapter of Ecc plainly says. We do not recognize YOUR definition of context as being correct.

Well, God, 2timothy316, as I'm certain you'll agree, speaks for Himself. Long ago through the prophets and types and shadows and in these last days through His Son, as Hebrews 1 says. So I don't "speak for God" in any sense, much less regarding any part of His Word, including Ecclesiastes. God speaks for Himself, in this case through the writer of Ecclesiastes. All I'm doing is clarifying it, not that God's Word needs clarification, of course, but only to make clearer those things that some obviously do not understand correctly. Most every poster here at least thinks he or she is doing the very same thing. However, having said that, you speak of context, and the ironic thing here is that among my main points throughout all these conversations is that, regarding Ecclesiastes 9:5, those believing in annihilation take Ecclesiastes 9:5 completely out of its proper context in order to fit their narrative. So, pot meet kettle, and kettle meet pot.

Do you understand why we can't rely on YOU for truth?

Two things here: 1.) I have never asked and am not asking you or anyone else to rely on me for truth, and 2.) again, what I understand is, there are some posters here in this forum (several, I guess) who, although they rely properly on God for truth, take His Word ~ at least in certain places (like here in Ecclesiastes 9) ~ completely out of context.

It is because of what you lead your explanations with. "I have said".

LOL! Well, God has said. Thus saith the LORD. LOL! I'm merely sayng that I have said what I'm saying here many times before. My goodness. See what I mean by "out of context"?

Why should we believe in your additions to the Word of God? The whole life after death doctrine depends on what YOU have said and I for one would not accept any interpretation of scripture where the interpretation depends on man alone.

No, this is merely how you have to paint it to discredit it. It's a straw-man argument, and thus invalid.

Grace and peace to you.

[2timothy316]

LOL! Well, God has said. Thus saith the LORD. LOL! I'm merely sayng that I have said what I'm saying here many times before. My goodness. See what I mean by "out of context"?

God has NOT said. YOU said. Changing your words after you're caught makes me trust anything you say even less. Anytime you start with "I have said" that's YOU and says to me that it reveals who you are speaking for. If you put God has said then you better be putting a scripture after it. Otherwise its a MAN speaking not God. Just because you put "God said" before something doesn't make the sentence something God said. Once again to claim to speak for God and I don't believe it. Everything you post I see a MAN's words.

And no I do not see what you mean by out of context because you and I don't use the same definition for the word context as you. If you say, "I have said" and then you later change it to "God said" that is not taking something out of context. I means that either you don't communicate very well or what you say at first shouldn't be trusted and we all have to wait for you to tell us what you REALLY meant. Clearly we don't use the same dictionary. Because when someone says or does something and later wants to reverse their previous action, it's called backpedaling. But I think its all your words anyway, so you saying "God said" to cover up your slip of "I have said" I believe your first words are correct. It is YOU said, yet you are no one I accept as speaking for God.

[2timothy316]

Do you understand why we can't rely on YOU for truth?

Two things here: 1.) I have never asked and am not asking you or anyone else to rely on me for truth, and

Sooo what you said about others taking Ecc 9 out of context isn't true. Ok, I believe that....
Of course you expect us to rely on your claim that we are taking Ecc 9 out of context. Otherwise you wouldn't have said anything. You never offer anything than your own words to back yourself up. Thank you for an example below.

2.) again, what I understand is, there are some posters here in this forum (several, I guess) who, although they rely properly on God for truth, take His Word ~ at least in certain places (like here in Ecclesiastes 9) ~ completely out of context.

This is YOUR idea that you want me to accept as the truth. This is not God telling me I'm taking scripture out of context. You want me to accept YOUR word about Ecc chapter 9 and yet offer NOTHING from the book of Ecc to support yourself. You have no credibility to say I'm taking Ecc the 9th chapter out of context. You have put yourself as the center of the debate of your word vs ours. What right do you have to say anyone is taking Ecc chapter 9 out of context? Just because you say some is talking something out of context doesn't make you right. Because I read those posters comments about Ecc 9:5 and I cannot find where they taking anything out of context.

[tam]

Peace to you,

All these discussions inevitably, invariably come down to this:

Death, in the Bible, is a state of existence.

The first death is. The second death is not. No one has experienced the second death yet.

To be dead in sin, as unbelievers are in this life, is a state of existence.

But that is not the second death. People who are dead in their sins are still among the living.



Peace again.

[PinSeeker]

Do you understand why we can't rely on YOU for truth?

Two things here: 1.) I have never asked and am not asking you or anyone else to rely on me for truth, and...

Sooo what you said about others taking Ecc 9 out of context isn't true.

LOL!!!! See point 2 above. Yes, there are several here who are taking Ecclesiastes 9:5 in particular completely out of context of Ecclesiastes 9, and Ecclesiastes as a whole.

You want me to accept YOUR word about Ecc chapter 9 and yet offer NOTHING from the book of Ecc to support yourself.

Ecclesiastes 9, 2timothy316, as I have said many, many times (in more than one thread, I think) is about LIFE UNDER THE SUN. These are not my words but straight from the Bible and Ecclesiastes (many times, over and over again in chapters 1 through 12) in particular. How you can say what you say here, that I offer nothing from the book of Ecclesiastes to support myself, is just incredible and obviously totally without merit.

You have no credibility to say I'm taking Ecc the 9th chapter out of context.

In your opinion, which I'm totally fine with. It is what it is.

You have put yourself as the center of the debate of your word vs ours.

I have done no such thing.

What right do you have to say anyone is taking Ecc chapter 9 out of context?

The context of Ecclesiastes as a whole and chapter 9 in particular (just because that's the immediate discussion) is life under the sun, temporal, earthly life, in this age, and not the age to come (eternity). And several posters here are applying it to the age to come in addition to the current age, life under the sun. Any discussion regarding "rights" of anyone has no relevance. It is what it is.

Just because you say some is talking something out of context doesn't make you right.

Okay, well, right back at you. Just because you say some are not taking something out of context doesn't make you right.

Because I read those posters comments about Ecc 9:5 and I cannot find where they taking anything out of context.

LOL! Well sure, because you agree with them. LOL!

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

LOL! Well, God has said. Thus saith the LORD. LOL! I'm merely sayng that I have said what I'm saying here many times before. My goodness. See what I mean by "out of context"?

God has NOT said. YOU said.

See? This is... kinda funny, actually. Here, you're taking me out of context. Whether it's intentional or not I'm not sure, but you're taking what I said totally out of the context in which I said it. So there you go. I even explained myself, saying that I'm merely offering an explanation here (or there) which is virtually identical to the explanation(s) I have given many times before. God said what He said in Ecclesiastes, which was what I was saying.

Grace and peace to you.