In the bible, fire sometimes goes unquenched until it does & finishes it's job..which is to consume or devour what it touches ending in utter irreversible annihilation. Proof:
Ezekial 20:47:Say to the southern forest: 'Hear the word of the LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it.
We have here an "unquenchable flame" that "consumes" all the trees of a forest. So if scripture uses this phrase, namely "unquenchable fire", in such a way, why is it apropos for Christians to assign it the opposite meaning from the one scripture truly does? According to scripture, a fire that cannot be quenched "consumes". It doesn't preserve infinitely whatever it touches. Unless you somehow inexplicably and unreasonably believe the consumed and destroyed forest is still burning alive and intact in those unquenchable flames, trees proudly standing tall forever as they burn perpetually any way but down..If one were to go there right after such an event, would the trees still be standing up burning and never being consumed, or would the forest be destroyed and quite literally devoured?
Let's examine another text wherein scripture will again define it's own phrases and terms for you (in this case "unquenchable fire" is the widely misused phrase and concept in question) so that you won't have to rely upon tradition or fallible uninspired preachers to do so.
Amos 5:6:Seek the LORD and live, or he will sweep through the house of Joseph like a fire; it will devour, and Bethel will have no one to quench it.
So,yet again,we have a fire that cannot be quenched "devouring" as opposed to "preserving infinitely." Yet typically,Christian traditionalists wouldn't hesitate, due to deceptive tradition and powerful indoctrination, to assign this phrase with the opposite meaning from the one scripture deliberately and explicitly articulates. It's neither sound nor remotely okay to do so considering the doctrines that result from such unfathomable and egregious misuse. If you don't want to believe the Old Testament inspired writers, how about the New? Do they use the phrase as the OT writers do or do they make up a new meaning like Christian traditionalists do who have listened to their uninspired money-making preachers for too long? We shall see:
Matthew 3:12:His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
I doubt anyone would dare to argue that the chaff doesn't represent the wicked here. Katakaio is the Greek word for "burn up" in Matt. 3:12 and it literally means to "consume wholly" or "burn up utterly"..
So what it sounds like is John the Baptist using a phrase he borrowed from OT writers & proceeding to use it in the exact same way they did. If it consumes and destroys whatever it touches, why suggest it doesn't? And John didn't mean an eternal consumption whereby nothing was ever literally ever destroyed by a bona fide devouring..for that would be an alarming & absurd attempt to assign the phrases he borrows from OT writers with the opposite meaning they've already aptly assigned them yet again. Kind of desperate and definitely unwarranted.
Simple questions, in summary?
1. What does unquenchable fire do to the southern forests in Ez. 20:47?
2. What would the unquenchable fire do to the house of Joseph in Amos 5:6?
3. What would unquenchable fire do to the wicked in Matthew 3:12?
4. Do you believe it?Or have you assigned this phrase a new meaning to preserve a teaching and philosophy of men?
This isn't me looking to scholars or preachers or books other than scripture to make arguments. This is a simplistic kindergarten reading of obvious texts to come to an easy and sound conclusion that disagrees with the majority of Christians. Those who inexplicably believe unquenchable fire never consumes or devours in quite the way scripture says it does, explicitly. This to me is not only concerning but downright easily resolved to any unblinded eyes. It really is as simple as reading the texts where this concept is used and proceeding to believe scripture's usage instead of a manmade misuse of it. If one desperately attempts to assign "consume" or "devour" a meaning as anything but what those terms naturally mean and inevitably lead to, it will ultimately become an exercise in futility considering that there is simply no arguing with the fact that forests don't get "infinitely consumed and destroyed" in fire wherein they don't burn up literally in an act of irreversible destruction. When Christians try to assign that desperate meaning(that fire preserves instead of consumes,keeps alive instead of destroying) of these terms in relation to the wicked, they are apparently making the decision to define scripture by their own ideas instead of letting it define its own phrases and terms. Not cool.
God doesn't take too kindly to potentially stumbling ideas. If I was convinced as most Christians are of the reality of most of mankind suffering sadistically ceaselessly in flames that never ever go out, not only could I not stand the idea, but I couldn't fathomably live peacefully, righteously, and blissfully in a kingdom where this atrocity is occurring to most everyone I've ever known and loved. That wouldn't even be possible because there is simply no such thing as righteous sadism. That's why we crave and need the kingdom in the first place. Because of the suffering in this world. So if you propagate suffering immeasurably worse than what we've ever conceived even in this wicked world forever even after the kingdom has come, you're deceived and deceiving.It isn't supported either by scripture or the most basic instincts of common sense, righteousness, and compassion. Even the basest of human beings would be appalled by infinite widespread sadism of the sort hellfire would be, yet some Christians act as if it's sensical. Disturbing.