makerowner

But your quibbling over this verse is irrelevant anyway, since according to your beliefs, there's still a last judgement, where unbelievers will be punished. What difference does it make if your eternal punishment starts right after you die or a few years later?

itsamysteryhuh

Notice that you used the phrase "eternal punishment" instead of the phrase "eternal punishing." If you are dead and are resurrected for judgement, then end up being a candidate for the "second (final) death," this "second death" (the punishment) would be final (eternal).

spin

You are hopeful to think that I "skipped right down to entry III without any regard for the other entries". I'm the linguist here, remember?

You have the L&S entry. Make a linguistic case. You're so good at it. Try your luck.

• generally, test, trial of genuineness
• a trial of strength
• a test, of candidates

Go ahead. And show us of course from the text, why. So far, you've avoided arguing from the text completely. In fact you haven't argued at all, you've simply asserted. But please, don't let me discourage you. You have an opportunity now.

As you are still playing your semantic games, perhaps you might like to metaphorize Dan 12:2, "Many of those who sleep in the land of dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." Hey, ya know, it doesn't say "everlasting pain", but it does say "everlasting" whatever. Not *poof* you've been extinguished, but you awake "to shame and everlasting contempt", while the good guys get it good everlastingly. This fits in just fine with the everlasting suffering in Revelation.


spin

knotted paragon

It would be interesting to have a time machine and take you back with me 20 years ago when my pentecostal preacher and several church elders were explaining to me that my Catholic wife was surely destined for eternal torment.

You have somehow missed two very important ideas in your time here at IIDB, its. First, that there are many different denominations that call themselves christian. Each interprets the handbook of christian fables differently, including their ideas about hell. Second, it is usually the theist who defines the terms.

When an unbeliever makes a statement about hell, it is generally based on statements made by theists, as in the example of my pentecostal preacher. Often, the theist's entire argument hinges on the threat of eternal torment alone, as in this example: rhutchin's insistence on eternal where unbelievers were explaining alternate meanings. Also, which atheist defined hell in the wrong way to the ever entertaining Jack Chick?



As spin has shown repeatedly, the original text is not ambiguous and certainly not in the manner in which you claimed. It should be painfully obvious by now, even to the most thick-skulled obstinate dullard, that no matter how long and hard one beats the horse, it's not going anywhere; it's dead.

Fortuna

The poster is merely trying to retroject a later Nicene idea of judgement and the later Chrstian ideas about hell onto a 1rst or 2nd century story written in greek. The Lukan story is perfectly consistent with a platonian greek understanding of Tartarus and Hades, and persons ther were literally tortured. Read below........................

I'm never sure why it is that some Christians do this.Surely they are aware that their doctrines are the result of later traditions and/or later re-interpretations of these stories.

I'm never sure of who they (the Christian apologists) are trying to convince, themselves or their audience.

Why is it that you are assuming that these words are being used metaphorically ? Is it possible hat it is you who are retrojecting later christian beliefs about hell and final judgement onto first century Greco-Roman culture ?

Plus, as another poster remarks ;

The story that you are reading is written in greek.But, not only greek words, but greek culture and greek ideas of the afterlife are what is relevant here. Does not this passage use the gree Hades and/or Tartarus ? In looking to later Christian ideas about these subjects you ought to be lookng at what the greek (or at that time, Greco-Roman) culture added to these words.

You see ,words carry cultural baggage. When you read the word "Hades" for example in a work from this time period, does that word not also potentially carry with it things like ;
-That the ruler of Hades was a god called Hades ?
- The idea of being underground ?
- Charon, Cerebrus, the river Styx ?
- The Platonian idea of immediate after-death judgement and sentencing ?

As the gospels werew written in greek, they must have been written for a Greco-roman audience most generally, and one could argue the subset of hellenized Jews. But, this would not necessarily be applicable to Judean Jews.

Remember that Flaviius Josephus was a very educated Judean Jew, and he admits that he was not well-versed in Greek (he admits that he became more fluent with it in Rome after the war. He also tells us that Judean Jews were discouraged from learning greek and foreign influences.

Not to mention that Judea was in rubble at the time these gospels were supposedly written (just after the war).

Thus I think it is justified to consider these written for a Greco-Roman audience who would likely be familiar with Plato and the Platonian myths, either directly or through the Greco-Roman cultural experience.

Well now it is certain that you are retrojecting the Nicean view of afterlife onto first century Greco-Roman culture.

OK, lets look at how the Greco-Roman Platonists would have understood these ideas of afterlife, final judgement and punishment after death.

All we have to do is to read Plato's Republic which was written about 350 BCE. Do I need to explain to you who Plato was, who the Platonists of Jesus's time were or the degree of influence that Plato and the "Platonic Myths" had on Greco-Roman culture of Jesus's time ? (I hope not !)

Interestingly, at the end of book 10 of Republic, there is a story called "The Myth of Er".According to Plato's story Er is killed in battle (or very nearly so) and he makes the journey of the dead, through judgement, witnesses what is going on in Hades, etc but then he awakens on the funeral pyre and tells of his experiences. Here is a quick summary from (http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consorti...epublic11.html)

(Reading other parts of Plato's Republix would also be instructive for you. It would teach you about some of the greek ideas about souls/death/philosophers', etc. Here are some links for you ;

Full text of book 10 of Republic from LiteratureClassics.com . The "Myth of Er" is the last section. (http://www.literatureclassics.com/etexts/102/129/)
The "Myth of er" Wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er

I will describe some specific features of the story (that correspond to The story in Luke and that you seem to think were not known by greek speaking people of the time) ;

- Judgement occurs immediately after death
- Tartarus is a place of punishment, that punishment is physical and sometimes fire is involved
- However, according to MoE, that punishment is only temporary.(some get punished longer than others depending on their crimes). It is more like a purgatory.
- Those who are rewarded get to choose the type of life to which thet get to ascend to. The wise philosopher always picks a utopia, others may not pick so wisely.

Here are some selected excerpts from Republic - The Myth of Er relevant to the issues ;

Here is some physical torture for you by torturers of fiery aspect

"Hell" here is a reference to Tartarus.

Phlegethon is the river of fire, and according to some stories it led and surrounded Tartarus.
Here is a wiki page wher you can get all the indo you need (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlegethon)

itsamysteryhuh

You don't think "everlasting" could simply mean "no second chances?" For example, if you are annihilated at Gehenna, wouldn't that be (according to the Bible) an "everlasting" sentence since there would be no second chances? :huh: Geez.

Fortuna, I'm not assuming anything about the words being used metaphorically. Just stating that it is certainly possible.

itsamysteryhuh

Spin, are you still with us? :huh:

itsamysteryhuh

I guess not.

Toto

I don't think that you have answered the questions that spin posed in post number 2. And you haven't managed to make any coherent arguments for anyone else to deal with. Shall we put this thread out of its misery?