Do you believe in hell? 5 simple questions for ya!

I believe in gehenna (hell) too! I believe gehenna consumes and destroys. So what I mean in the title of this blog is "do you believe in the traditionalist misuse and misinterpretation of gehenna, namely as a fire that never ever consumes?" This is my laziest shortest blog entry ever.

Answer me these 5 kindergarten questions (scriptures are even there to help out):

1. In the bible, does unquenchable fire preserve or consume? (Ezekial 20:47, Amos 5:6, Matthew 3:12)

2. In the bible, do worms that don't die preserve souls or consume corpses? (Isaiah 66:24)

3. In the bible, does the lake of fire perform a different function for death than it does the wicked, which are both thrown there in the same passage? (1 Corinthians 15:26, Revelation 20:14)

4 .In the bible, is eternal fire said to reduce to ashes or to infinitely preserve? (Jude 1:7, 2 Peter 2:6)

5. In the bible, are the wicked said to become ashes or to never be reduced to ashes? (Malachi 4:3)

Thanks and God bless!

Does the Unquenchable Fire of Hell keep the wicked alive?

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.

What is death?(a 2 Corinthians 5:8,Philippians 1:23 ,and immortal soul issue)

(The youtube with this info is below but doesn't have ALL the details in this blog.The video has some info that ISN'T in this blog though.So if you'd like to check it out,feel free)


"The intervening state is not consciously experienced at all by the dead!After death,the next thing we know is that we are summoned by Christ."--Warren Prestidge,Life,Death,and destiny,pg. 46

Keeping the above quote in mind,let's examine:


2 Corinthians 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

"So instantaneous is the changeover from the old body to the new which Paul here envisages that there will be no interval of conscious "nakedness" between the one and the other.The change-over takes place,as he says in 1 Corinthians 15:52,"in a moment,in the twinkling of an eye"--only there the split second transformation takes place at the parousia."--F.F.Bruce,Paul:Apostle of the Heart Set Free,pg.312

Paul wishes to be home with the Lord in his resurrected glorified untainted body.He is distinguishing that one to come from the tent he resided in at the time,the perishable corruptible one.Similar to 1 Corinthians chapter 15 where our glorified bodies in the image of the Last Adam's are poignantly described in contrast to the corruptible ones inherited from the first Adam.The resurrection at the Last Day is when we'll be absent from the corrupt flesh we now possess.And ONLY then.


"To be "absent from the body and present with the Lord" is the hope that we will meet Christ when he comes to raise us from death.The Bible knows of only one way to escape death--that is by being resurrected at the return of Christ(those who are still alive when he comes will need only be transformed by receiving their new body.)To be "with the Lord" means to be with Jesus through resurrection at Christ's return.So Paul had explained to the Thessalonians when he had elaborated on the divine arrangements by which the saints would be brought into the presence of the returning Lord."In this way(i.e.,by resurrection and transformation) we shall always be with the Lord."(1 Thes. 4:17)"-Anthony Buzzard "Our Fathers who aren't in Heaven" p.225




Paul clarifies HIMSELF in the SAME chapter.Examine:

2 Cor. 5:2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling 3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. 4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

So...

To quote Alan Richardson:“the notion of a disembodied spirit is repugnant to the Hebrew mind” (Introduction to New Testament Theology, p. 196)


Paul does NOT want to be disembodied!Obviously,Paul wants to be absent from his DYING corruptible body of tainted flesh that he has to fight.(Romans 7:14-25,8:1-17)When does THIS happen?In his death and subsequent resurrection!When Paul awakes from death in the last day,not being made perfect apart from his fellow servants,it will be as if he never slept at all.We have no concept of passing time when we die.It will feel immediate to us when we meet the Lord upon being resurrected.Paul is not to be found naked as a disembodied harp playing spirit creature with no body at all,but rather to be CLOTHED with glory,his corruptible one swallowed in imperishability.BUT not till the return of Christ and a resurrection at the Last Day.

"He knows that the next moment of consciousness for him will be at the resurrection when he will be raised to receive his new body and thus be forever with the Lord Jesus.There may be many long years between the death of Paul and his next waking moment at the return of Christ when he will be raised up.He knows it will seem but a moment between closing his eyes in the sleep of death and the glorious moment of new consciousness."p. 327 "They Never Told me THIS in Church" by Greg Deuble


Paul ,communicating once again in the plainest language possible where his focus REALLY lies, even further says:

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come.7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith;8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

"Simply put,Paul is dying,and he knows he is departing FROM THIS LIFE.And as is the case every single time he discusses hope beyond the grave,he looks forward to the "appearing" of Christ in resurrection power.He looks forward to "the future" when he will stand before the Lord,the righteous Judge,"on that day."Facing imminent death,Paul says nothing about going straight up to the Lord in heaven.This should settle once and for all time that after death Paul's hope is in the resurrection when Christ returns to the earth.This also confirms Philippians 1:23 where he states that what he desires is to meet Christ in the next second of consciousness after falling asleep in death.Paul looks for the RETURN OF CHRIST,so he can be with him,"which is very much better."p.338-339 "They Never Told me THIS in Church" by Greg Deuble


Hebrews 11:13 says:

These all died in faith(the OT faithful), not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar..and skipping ahead, verse 40 further says:since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.

So the author of Hebrews notes explicitly that *we*(Christians) will be made perfect when *they*(those before Christ) will!(see also 2 Cor. 4:14)Which means no one is perfected and glorified until the resurrection.Easy truth.Keep in mind David nor anyone else had ascended to heaven before Christ had(Acts 2:34,John 3:13) and won't receive their reward till the Last Day..(1 Cor. 15:52,1 Thes. 4:16)Which nullifies simply and immediately the orthodox belief that a righteous "soul" floats off to heaven at death because it supposedly can't die.(1 Tim. 6:16,Ps. 22:29,Ez. 18:4,Gen. 2:7,3:19)

"It is undeniable that the New Testament everywhere strains towards the Parousia and the resurrection of the faithful which is consistently placed at the great day, as the collective resurrection of all the saints. Paul has a precise and simple system of resurrection: “In Christ shall all be made alive…those who belong to Christ at his Coming” (1 Cor. 15:23). In 1 Thessalonians 4 he offers comfort to the believers in connection with those Christians who are said to be sleeping, an extraordinary term to use if he thought they were already fully conscious in bliss with the Lord!"--From "What happens when we die?A Biblical view of death and resurrection" by Anthony Buzzard

Buzzard further states:

"What possible sense can be made of the waking up of already fully conscious spirits in possession of the beatific vision? Paul could have so easily removed all anxiety by pointing out that the dead in Christ were already with him, having at the moment of death overcome the grave and passed to their reward in heaven. It is well known that he says nothing of the sort. Rather, he reinforces the certainty that at the coming of Jesus “the dead in Christ”—those asleep (1 Thess. 5:10)—will be resurrected and united with those who survive until the great day. The antidote to despair was thus the prospect of the resurrection at the return of Christ, not the consciousness of the dead in another location, of which intermediate state Paul says not one word.The all-important moment of the coming of Christ to establish his Kingdom has been replaced by the moment of the individual’s death."--From "What happens when we die?A Biblical view of death and resurrection" by Anthony Buzzard


Also,G.E Ladd notes:

“Paul never conceives of the salvation of the soul apart from the body…neither man’s soul nor spirit is viewed as an immortal part of man which survives death. The Biblical word ‘soul’ is practically synonymous with the personal pronoun. There is no thought of an immortal soul existing after death” (I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus, p. 45)

Paul corroborates(again) what is communicated explicitly throughout the entire NT when he says:

Colossians 3:4:When Christ who is your life appears, THEN you also will appear with him in glory.

Just another implicit statement of WHEN glory is to be gotten.So why say before?We know he's talking about Christ's return,and not before.So why are we divorcing a couple texts from this reality and Paul's own larger contexts and thoughtforms?His intent has been egregiously butchered.You cannot pull verses from their larger contexts such as Christians are so willing to do with Paul in 2 Cor. 5:8 and Phil. 1:23.Upon death,a metaphorical sleep,the very next experience we will encounter,as if we'd never slept at all,will be meeting the Lord when he awakes us.What a beautiful reality Christians tragically erase by misusing a literal couple texts,counting as refuse obvious contexts,and clinging to a Platonic Hellenistic tradition that efficiently eradicates our true Christian hope by transferring it from the resurrection in the LAST DAY to a flying away to heaven and never dying or sleeping at all..How willing are Christians to ignore the entire overwhelming biblical revelation about what death actually means?Apparently,very.

VERY much like 2 Cor. 5:8 and also patently misused is:

Philippians 1:23:I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.

In light of Paul's larger contexts,Paul's hope and desire are firmly fixed on Christ's return from heaven and a FUTURE resurrection,as opposed to a glory received anytime before it.We're not left to wonder what Paul longs for and when he'll get it.Examine:

Philippians 3:10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

"What Paul was really aiming for is fortunately clarified later in the same epistle: “if by any means I might attain to the resurrection…we look for the Savior, Jesus Christ, from heaven, who will transform our body of humiliation so that it may be conformed to the body of his glory” (Phil. 3:11, 20). It is beyond question that he here knows of no goal other than the attainment of resurrection at the return of Christ. It would therefore be quite unfair to read his remarks about “departing to be with the Lord” as relating to a quite different aspiration, one not involving resurrection, and thus quite distinct from his desire for the last day. The popular belief implies that a Christian can be fully alive with Christ apart from the resurrection. This will mean that death is not really death in any real sense, but the continuation of life in another realm. At that point resurrection from the dead becomes meaningless! Paul, in fact, speaks in Philippians 1:23 simply of his departure to be with Christ through death and subsequent resurrection. For the dying, their next second of consciousness will find them alive in the resurrection. Departure from this life will mean being with Christ at his Coming."--From "What happens when we die?A Biblical view of death and resurrection" by Anthony Buzzard

As Buzzard noted,the following is ALSO clear "resurrection at the LAST day" kind of imagery and language:

Phil 3:20:But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Briefly,on a side note:
What does citizenship in heaven mean if we're to inherit the earth and not the heavens where the angels reside?(Heb. 2:5)Well,apparently that we're symbolically "seated in Christ in the heavenlies"(Eph. 1:3,2:6), where he "prepares a place for us"(Jn. 14:3,Matt. 20:23) that he will give us when he returns here to this very earth.(Luke 1:32,33)He's in heaven *until* the time for the restoration of the earth comes.(Acts 3:21)Because this earth has yet to become "the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ",(Rev. 11:15)heaven is where our treasures are being stored till it does!(Matt 6:20)Glorified men in the fashion and nature of Yahushua ha'Mashiach "will have the earth for their heritage, and will go on living there for ever."(Ps. 37:29,Rom. 15:8)



Anthony Buzzard says on pp. 240-241 of his book "Our fathers who Aren't in Heaven:The Forgotten Christianity of Jesus,the Jew":

"Paul insists that the dead have perished unless there is to be a resurrection(1 Cor. 15:18).This is patently not true if in reality their souls have survived into another world.The whole matter is so very simple once the Greek dualism of body and separable conscious soul is erased from the mind.For while it is true that man commits his spirit--himself as a vital thinking creature--to God at death,it is equally clear that the man himself falls into unconsciousness.Stephen in Acts 7 fell asleep in death after committing himself to God.(Acts 7:59,60)Stephen in the next moment of consciousness will awake in the resurrection at the coming of Christ to earth.The notion of a surviving conscious spirit deprived of a body belongs in scripture to the world of evil spirits,never to man."

"The hopes of the faithful are constantly directed towards the future kingdom of God for which they are waiting even after Jesus' resurrection(Luke 23:51).It would be hard to imagine a more erratic departure from this simple scheme suddenly to teach that ,after all,souls go to heaven the moment they die."

But if death ISN'T the separation of an unkillable immortal "soul"(acc to orthodoxy's WRONG definition of it only) from the body,what exactly is it?

Yah's definition of death:

Eccl. 3:19, 20:a man has no preeminence over a beast: as the one dies, so dies the other. All are of the dust, and all turn to dust again

Psalm 6:5: For in death there is no remembrance of thee.

Ecclesiastes 9:5: For the living know that they shall die, but the dead KNOW NOTHING

Daniel 12:2: And many of them that SLEEP in the dust of the earth shall awake

Ps. 146:4:His spirit(means breath) departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his THOUGHTS PERISH

Ps. 115:17:The dead cannot sing praises to the LORD, for they have gone into the SILENCE of the grave.

John 11:11:Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up

Yet Christians have the nerve to say we're thinking,breathing,praising,and awake while we're supposed to be dead.It's mindboggling.Because to reiterate,the bible's definition(as opposed to Plato's or Socrates's and orthodoxy's influenced by blatant Hellenism) is a metaphorical sleep,a cessation of thoughts and breath and praise..unconsciousness.Orthodox Christians have proceeded to shamelessly(though probably deceived) propagate Satan's lie in the garden of Eden "You shall surely NOT die!" deceiving many just as they are deceived.

God alone(and now the resurrected Yeshua) are immortal!(1 Tim. 6:16)To dust we shall return and if faithful and true to Yahweh and Yeshua we will be clothed with immortality and glory in a resurrection,and not until then!We shall not be made perfect apart from our brothers and sisters by flying away to heaven in immortal perfection.That would mean we're made perfect apart from them and given eternal life before the "last day," both succintly unbiblical notions,as hopefully demonstrated in some of the texts in this blog.

As for death and resurrection ,Anthony Buzzard says:

"At death, the spirit (ruach) of man and animal alike returns to God who gave it (Eccl. 3:20; 12:7).“God takes away their breath [ruach], they die, and return to their dust” (Ps. 104:29).At death his breath (ruach) goes forth from him, he returns to the earth, and “in that very day his thoughts perish” (Ps. 146:4); for if God “gathers to himself man’s spirit and breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again to the dust” (Job 34:14, 15)."

And further:

"There is no suggestion that resurrection means the reuniting of an already conscious spirit with its body; though certainly the creation of the new immortal beings must involve the infusion of spirit into the new body to produce “spiritual” persons. But the spirit is not the individual subsisting as a conscious personality apart from the body. Only after the resurrection would it be appropriate to refer to the transformed saints as immortal spirits."--From "What happens when we die?A Biblical view of death and resurrection"



So basically,when we die,it is up to God to return our force of life,our breath,our conscious being.We gave that back to him when our thoughts ceased to function,in anticipation,like Job and other faithful ones,of a FUTURE resurrection from genuine unconsciousness.When we die,our breath and life returns to him which means that our thoughts perish,we fall asleep and we become unconscious,utterly silent.Only God can give us our lives back in a resurrection when he resuscitates us through Christ.The resurrection is of an actual person and not of a *body* that had nobody in it because that person was ALREADY alive.If that were the case(person already alive),much of scripture would be so utterly nonsensical,pointless moot lies,deceptive even.As Christians we SHOULD know better!So why are preachers preaching fables?

Here's my method of interpreting:CONTEXT(larger ones are important too!),reason,biblical harmony.Simple enough.If you have 1,000 scriptures that state something rather plainly and unambiguously then have a couple that SEEM to contradict those on the surface,make sure an alternative interpretation isn't viable.Make sure you're staying true to the author and his ideas!Do NOT trust men.They can easily deceive in the slyest ways with their philosophical sophistry.What a cruel Lord we have if Lazarus was taken from his supposed home with God in the benevolent heavens and brought back to this chaotic corrupt earth!Obviously,bodies cannot sleep without egos in them.Obviously,Lazarus lacked thoughts & breath,was silent,was sleeping awaiting a resurrection.That's why Jesus wept.Lazarus was out of commission,not blissfully residing amongst Yahweh and a heavenly host!Then Jesus would have rejoiced and been able to assuredly and blissfully comfort his family without raising him back to the chaos of a fallen earth,no?

Job 14:13:Oh that You would hide me in Sheol, That You would conceal me until Your wrath returns to You, That You would set a limit for me and remember me!

Most people think Sheol is a place of fiery torment!Job begged to go there.Interesting.Job also begged for Yahweh to remember **me**(his entire person and not just a *body*) at the proper time.(John 5:28,29)

Daniel 12:2:Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake

No thought here at all of bodies sleeping,but rather, logically and scripturally speaking, actual persons.*I* in Greek means an actual ego,not a body devoid of one.The ACTUAL mind and person dies,not *just* a body devoid of such.Jesus said **I**died.(Rev. 1:17-18).Yahweh never said your traditions and fables should be embraced at all costs..even when he refutes you in a number of ways.I have noticed many malinformed doctrines springing from a misuse of a few texts and an unwillingness to exegete them in their entire biblical context.Hence,a labyrinth of thick deception,a web of tricky lies,gets built and people with decent intent are blinded,which God DOES allow if tradition is preferred over his word.A fairy tale ear tickling over simply stated facts.Misuse of his inspired writers' intent in specially selected abused texts over reason and biblical harmony.

To quote Justin Martyr from the 2nd century:

"How then did Christ raise the dead? Their souls or their bodies? Manifestly both. If the resurrection were only spiritual, it was requisite that He, in raising the dead, should show the body lying apart by itself, and the soul living apart by itself. But now He did not do so, but raised the body. . . . Why do we any longer endure those unbelieving arguments and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: That the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived. For this we used to hear from Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing beyond what we heard from Plato, did He bring us?"

"if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this[truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genist , Meristae,Gelilaeans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews(do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are[only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. "--from CHAPTER LXXX Dialogue with Trypho by Justin Martyr

So Justin understood,even though he was platonically schooled,that the notion that disembodied souls fly off to heaven at death makes moot of the truth and fact of a genuine resurrection.I've no idea why Christians today don't.Christians today think the resurrection isn't of PEOPLE but rather "nothingness."Dust made into a body again and somehow revitalized by a disembodied soul that is already alive.A resurrection to life even though they were always alive!Nonsensical.Our hope is supposed to be in a resurrection precisely because that's when we receive life again,not because we were always alive and suddenly there's dust again to join our vital aliveness.Is our resurrection all about dust and not us anymore?I don't think Jesus intended for anyone to view it that way!

1 Tim. 2:18:They have left the path of truth, claiming that the resurrection of the dead has already occurred; in this way, they have turned some people away from the faith.

And our faith shouldn't be in our ability to never die like a superperson,an unkillable human,an ego that must be preserved *someplace* for all of eternity,who joins God while our "bodies sleep."(as if they could without us in them!)But in a resurrection of our DEAD PERSON at the last day.If people are always living(the righteous in bliss),the resurrection is a joke.And our faith shouldn't be in it but in something potentially LONG before it.Which scripture says subverts the faith of some.Which advances Satan's lie in the garden of Eden.(Gen. 3:4)Which makes us immortal when God alone is.(1 Tim. 6:16)He can GIFT it to us in a resurrection (Rom. 6:23)but it isn't inherent to our corrupt being.

Gen. 3:19:By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust **you** are and to dust **you** will return.

Notice how God didn't say "to dust shall your body without you in it return while you survive it all."

Great sermon on hell

Revelation 14:9-11(Hellfire proof texts explained!)

The following video is an excerpt from Ed Fudge's book "The Fire that Consumes" (pages 186-190)..I didn't read every point he made trying to fit it all under 11 minutes.I'm sure he wouldn't advocate all of my theology but we agree on this point.The man is not a JW.I have no idea why the audio is suddenly so bad on youtube with my videos..It's fine till they get uploaded.

Couple points:

Jesus Christ paid the FULL wrath of God against sin on the cross.Is Jesus in eternal conscious torment?If not,then how was God's wrath against sin actually demonstrated upon him?Unrepentant sinners will have to pay their OWN price because they didn't accept Christ's payment ..torture leading to death.Just as Christ demonstrated.Otherwise,God lied when he said his wrath against sin was poured out upon His Son.He also lied to Adam when he said sin equalled death and ashes,then elsewhere defined death as a cessation of thoughts and existence,a lack of breath and life.What he REALLY meant was ashes..but THEN eternal conscious torment and that death equals eternal life(sometimes in agony),right?That the wicked inherit everlasting life,right?Only if you believe Satan and not the bible,who says God ALONE is immortal..and also now Christ of course.If God and Christ ALONE are,then why do Christians say everyone is?

A possibility that Ed didn't raise in relation to "NO REST day and night" is that this is in stark contrast to the righteous who will enter God's rest in the kingdom.In other words,the wicked don't receive that blessing.Ever."Day and night" Ed points out is genitive here,and doesn't have to mean a literal forever.In Isaiah 34:10 "night and day" is used for the smoke of Edom,and the language in Revelation here is borrowed from that.I can assure you that smoke has gone out,but wasn't,when it lasted,limited to either a night or a day.The eternality of it is in relation to its being an eternal and silent witness to the reality of Edom's ETERNAL destruction.What is eternal is the effect of the judgment rather than the process of it,the smoke SYMBOLIZING the destruction,the eternal one.Similar to "eternal redemption" being a ONE TIME redemption with everlasting consequences as opposed to an "eternal redeeming process."Christ's payment was a ONE TIME thing.As for "forever" in scripture,it doesn't always mean a literal forever,but rather only for as long as what is being spoken of exists.

To quote Steve Scianni from his essay "everlasting torment examined"

Ages of ages is an indefinite amount of time finding its duration in connection to the object referred to.

We might also recall the smoke rising forever and ever in Isaiah 34 and Revelation 19:3 as denoting an indefinite but limited amount of time. Also, 2 Kings 5:27, Psalm 83:17, Matthew 21:19, and Philemon 15 are among numerous examples of the word forever limited to the duration of the entity spoken of.

Examine Jonah 2:6: To the roots of the mountains I sank down;
the earth beneath barred me in FOREVER.
But you brought my life up from the pit,
O LORD my God.

So Jonah said he was barred in the fish forever..Was he?Obviously,forever often means "for as long as what is spoken of lasts" in the bible.

Regrettably,I used images here that are from a Satanic film,the Passion of the Christ.I JUST watched a revealing documentary about the film that exposes the truth about it.Here's the link to the first part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J73V4LCNkgw

I would remove this video but I simply do not want to remake this(I erased this one from my pc and so can't just easily erase the images from the original) and I think the truth in this vid is too important to discard and needs to remain out there.But I do apologize for the images from the film.

The truth about Hellfire

This was in a debate about hell between Dan Mages,Steve Scianni,and Patrick Navas with Gene Cook and 2 other traditionalists.I will provide the link for Dan Mages' podcasts where I found this.Dan Mages and Steve Scianni are speaking in these portions(you can listen to the whole thing on the link..just click on the podcast about hell..obviously)

http://hungertruth.com/Podcast.php


I am amazed and appalled at the traditionalists' attack on these 3 men(in the entirety of the debate.this is what ppl do when thay have no REAL biblical defense..they tell you you don't have the holy spirit to help you understand God's son is God or the wicked won't just perish) just because they take words like consumed destroyed death and perish literally,taking the LITERAL few scriptures that supposedly prove the "hellfire" doctrine in context of the OT scriptures that explain their symbolism..If you're a Christian watching this,it is time to wake up..You don't know who you worship!God is love.If he tells you that immortal worms and unquenchable fire are on CARCASSES and that eternal fire means DESTRUCTION and that weeping and gnashing of teeth means anger (which would be normal when one is being judged!)and that the CONSEQUENCES of nouns of action when paired with "eternal" are generally what's eternal as opposed to the action itself(eternal sin,eternal judgment,eternal destruction etc) then you should listen.And it doesn't matter who or what someone is,if they are trying to help you understand that immortality is a GIFT that does not BELONG to the wicked and that souls can die.these are biblical facts.Like I said,time to wake up.

My question to you is..are you going to take what the bible teaches clearly and irrefutably from Genesis to Revelation..that the wicked shall perish and return to dust OR are you going to take a literal few symbolic texts that you think prove something that the bible explains in OT passages(yes folks..the symbolism is explained for you) literally and call it justice when temporary sin that we INHERITED is punished with a literal eternal fire(that the bible says means destruction) and then profess to know that God is love and tempers his justice with mercy and shall make a world anew where mourning and sin and death will exist NOWHERE?Seriously?As an orthodox believer,you believe he will extend mourning and sin and "eternal dying" forever after.That is incongruent with his plans to reveal his glory and his promised way of doing so!By eliminating all the things you think he will preserve.


If you ignore blatant logic and explicit biblical statements like the fate God promised Adam then don't be surprised if God questions your perception of him and the definition of justice and love and reason.If you take symbolic hyperbolic passages literally and proclaim that gehenna preserved what was thrown in it alive,don't be surprised if God exposes your reliance upon tradition instead of fact and reason and truth.I say all this not to seem pushy or shattering of long held traditions that are difficult to sever but simply to point out the truth that MUST be embraced in order to properly understand God and his Son and their kingdom.Admittedly,this orthodox belief confounds me in a most disturbing way.Not because I don't WANT to accept what the bible teaches,but because I understand what it does and consider this teaching blasphemous,a grand and inexcusable error.

21crosscheck21 posts a sensationalized video PLUS a bonus hell rant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHBNXrBYqow

I urge everyone to go to youtube to watch this video and read ABibleReader's comments about what the mother said about this tragedy..She thinks it was murder. Also,ABibleReader made some logical truthful comments about how Christians traumatize kids with hellfire preachin' consistently.(I personally was traumatized by my great grandpa's passionate preaching about it when I was little)As well as facts about how prominent suicide is for boys this age.So to isolate a JW case and blame it on the WT when NOTHING is known is just bizarre.This is a tragedy to be sure ..That is why I hate to see it being exploited when no one knows the facts!!



WHY else do I think it was wrong for Brian to post this?Because news programs are about sensationalism.No one knows what happened!So to sensationalize something like this and to think that preaching Armageddon is an abomination when you personally preach something as heinous atrocious monstrous and disgusting as eternal hellfire is hypocritical and preposterous.I like Brian and that is why it upsets me all the more to see intelligent nice people like him exploiting something like this when they have a massive erroneous doctrine like hellfire they use like a weapon against anyone they wish up their theological sleeve.I know one argument traditionalists will use is that their children are assured of a heavenly calling.Well I for one would find no comfort in that whatsoever if my little friends at school who weren't as "Christian" as I would never be fanned in the flames of hell.Talk about traumatic!And what about family who perhaps think Jesus is God's son as opposed to God or don't believe at all?I have to live with their screams of terror for an infinity in a supposedly blissful kingdom?PLEASE!If I believed in hell,I would live and breathe traumatized!And it is truly a perturbing thing to be child trying with all your little heart and soul to understand how love and mercy can be reconciled with hellfire and how God's son is God!I knew God could not be balanced or truthful at all if these lies were true!John 3:16 alone disproves both.Believe it or not,I am not advocating the excessive WT depictions of Armageddon etc. but trust me..logically,heartfeltly,it is the lesser of two evils.To say the least!Children have VIVID imaginations and sensitive hearts and it doesn't take pictures for them to "see" what you tell them to believe!Poor kids.How very big of you Brian to lambast people who preach destruction when you preach the boldfaced lie of eternal life in flames for the majority of mankind!The same ol Satanic lie..no one ever REALLY dies.Back to the Garden of Eden for some education.

Genesis 3:19:For dust you are and to dust you will return.

Sounds kinda like :

Matthew 3:12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will completely clean up his threshing floor, and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will BURN UP with fire that cannot be put out.(what happens in fire Brian?Did anyone stay alive in gehenna?)

I'm thinkin' in John 3:16 ,when it says the wicked shall perish,that it pretty much means what it says!

To anyone who lives to criticize the WT for their faults(and yes they have them I know!)Time to examine yourself first.


Matthew 7:3 Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye.

If the WT is a cult what would you call the broad and spacious road that preaches "Christianity's" two biggest most detrimental lies..the trinity and hell?You'd probably call it "truth" if you're fond of tradition and philosophy of men.But I would venture to say you're fooling yourself.God said "This is my son"..what about THAT is hard to understand?God also said "The wicked shall perish"..That is precise language as well..

I sincerely hope Brian takes no offense but instead continues to prayerfully investigate his core beliefs as I think he is a smart man who Jah could use to grand effect with the right humble spirit,willingness to reform..AGAIN,and to accept blatant truth when it is shown him straight from the pages of scripture.I am not talking about symbolic texts being taken literally and elaborate inferences about God's son being anything but his father's servant and agent and son in some philosophical 4th century manmade formula either.God how I pray truth will reign and become clearer to the sincere hearted as time draws closer for the establishment of His perfect kingdom restored to this earth.

Here's the reality,Brian.You are judging people who preach annihilation when you preach hellfire!The hypocrisy and absurdity there is striking!Yes the pictures might disturb children..(please note JW children are taught positive things from scripture more than armageddon)..But to confidently articulate(yes I've heard you speak about your beliefs) a fiery fairy tale of the worst kind of sadistic evil man or child could EVER imagine?UNFORGIVABLE.Here's hoping you and every other stubborn Christian will delve deeply into logic and exegesis and pick apart every text they think proves hellfire and "make sure of all things",holding fast to what is good and true!

You can start by googling "everlasting torment examined" by Steve Scianni.And that's just the beginning of exegesis available that actually remains within the bounds of logic,recognizing the symbolism and hyperbole in Revelation,understanding what gehenna entails,refusing to look at words like "destroyed,perish,ashes" as anything but what they would reasonably say.etc.Why?Because you're preaching the same lie Satan did and traumatizing children and adults alike.Those who don't just look for any way out that they can..like atheism..to avoid believing in a sadist God.You don't know his personality and that confounds me!The bible is clear.The worst that ever happened to sinners?Agony leading to death.That satisfies God's wrath against sin.To get rid of it.His holiness is magnified in "making all things new" without the preservation of the most heinous evil man could ever imagine into all of eternity.That would hamper the kingdom peace,no?

HeLLL naw.

This is all taken from an online essay by Steve Scianni called
"the contributions of Chris Morgan in Hell under Fire"
under the heading
Conditional Immortality and Hell
found here:
http://hungertruth.com/Religion_Articles.html

Read the other articles found there under that heading as well for a wealth of important information :)

Oh Hell!!(texts explained by someone smarter than me)

Hey everyone.I found this great online article "Everlasting torment Examined" that I wanted to share portions of.Please clickety click on the link for the entire sensible awesome thing :)Thanks to the guy who recommended this !The person who wrote this is not affiliated with JW's as far as I know.
http://www.members.shaw.ca/homechristian/docs/articles/EverlastingTormentExamined.htm

***Matthew 10:28
“Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

The passage, as it relates to final punishment is unambiguous in stating that the ‘soul,’ whatever it may be, is not indestructible or immortal. It can and will be destroyed in Gehenna (translated, “hell”). That is a fairly clear statement that the fate of the unrighteous is not eternal torment, but destruction. At face value the term commonly denotes concepts like, ‘abolish, obliterate, annihilate, raze, demolish, etc.’ If Jesus wanted to teach everlasting torment, he would have likely used different wording such as ‘fear Him who could torment body and soul in hell,’ but he does not say that. He uses the term ‘destroy’ and the burden of proof is on the side of the Orthodox to show that the term ‘destroy’ means ‘torment.’ Of course this cannot be done, because the Greek (apolesai) simply cannot be forced to mean that.

God will completely and utterly kill the soul. That is the clearest and most coherent meaning of the admonition – an endless torment does not fit the context or the language, but makes nonsense of both.

***Daniel 12:2
“Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt.”

That the unrighteous are raised to undergo a shameful death is even more substantiated by the use of the word ‘contempt’ in the Hebrew. Literally meaning ‘abhorrence,’ it is the same word used in Isaiah 66:24 where the righteous look upon the corpses of the rebellious with abhorrence as fire and worms consume their dead bodies. These are the only two times this word is used in the OT and some significance should be granted to that fact when establishing a connotation. In Isaiah’s usage, the corpses of the wicked are viewed with lasting disgust, and in Daniel, given that they rise in order to die, the lasting contempt must refer to a similar thing.

Moreover, a note should be made that the ‘contempt’ is coming from either the righteous or God (or both), and is not descriptive of any state of the wicked. The ‘everlasting contempt’ is the subjective experience of the righteous prompted by the shamefulness of their counterparts.

It is the memory of the dead that is shamed, disgraced and held in contempt – “Let the wicked be put to shame, let them be silent in Sheol” (Psalm 31:17, see Ezekiel 32:30, Isaiah 14:9-20, and Proverbs 10:7 for other examples of this common OT theme).
Because they will not rise to an enduring life, there is no place for a clarifying of their state since they are dead, and such a condition needs no explanation. A state of death was clearly understood and it was enough to mention that their execution and failure to attain immortality brings their memory only a lasting disdain.

That Hebrew word is olam(for everlasting).The word does not demand an actual eternity, nor does the context demand the contempt must last literally as long as the life; however, should the words be taken to mean that the contempt lasts as long as the life, it can be taken as a parallel to illustrate the opposing fates of the Godly and ungodly. The one goes on to live forever; the other is dead forever. That is, their death state is everlasting because they are held in permanent contempt and do not deserve to “shine brightly like the stars forever” (v.3); nor are they “to attain the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:11) because they are not “worthy” of it (see Luke 20:35,36).

Similar language in the OT may help in determining the most accurate meaning of the phrase in question: everlasting contempt. In Psalm 78:66 retells how God placed on his enemies an “everlasting reproach.” Contextually, the phrase is found in this historical narrative retelling the history of Israel’s mistakes, judgments and restoration (see vv. 34-53 for example). The scorn of “everlasting reproach” took place, then, in time and depicts the denunciation of Zion’s enemies (v.68) – which is parallel to an indefinite rejection similar to the one experienced by the tribes of Joseph and Ephraim (v.67). Clearly, “everlasting reproach” bears the meaning of an indistinct and lasting reprimand, at most for as long as these enemies exist. That comparable language to “everlasting contempt” often bears this temporal sense can be seen in Jeremiah 23:40 where God denounces the people for following after false prophets and will have them endure “everlasting reproach” and “everlasting humiliation” – their city and their memory will be disgraced and their shame not forgotten. Again this is not an eternal and infinite reproach upon Israel, but an indefinite and lasting one that will endure a long time until her restoration. As Joel predicts: “The LORD will be zealous for His land and will have pity on His people. The LORD will answer and say…, ‘Behold…I will never again make you a reproach among the nations’” (2:18,19). Given these uses, the phrase everlasting contempt ought to be read as an expression of a permanent disdain lasting indefinitely, not as teaching a literal eternity of disgust.

Whatever the exact meaning of the phrase is, however, the above discussion has done justice to the language and context. Should both states be insisted on as being literally the same duration, the parallel, as has been established, is between “life” and “death” and as both are forever, that is satisfactory.
They (who believe in literal hellfire)have to conclude that the righteous, for all eternity, will experience feelings of disgust, abhorrence and contempt. How, though, can these be any part of the new heavens and new earth where there is no more sorrow, pain, or tears – where the old order of things was said to have passed away? How does the Traditionalist imagine that the righteous will watch a person be tormented for long periods of time without becoming horrified and miserable themselves? It is only the most sadistically ill people who do not experience agony when they view the protracted agony of others.

No interpretation that creates “righteous sadists” can be the true one.

***Matthew 25:41, 46
“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels’…These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Five things, (1) much can be said concerning the Greek expression kolasis aionios (punishment eternal), including (a) how antiquity sometimes used it to describe a finite penalty between people, (b) how the word aionios can bear various meanings along with being indefinite, (c) how the gospel of Matthew was probably written in Hebrew with the word for “punishment” (kolasis) being a translation, (d) how different words instead of punishment, like “fire” or “judgment,” appear in different manuscripts, or (e) how the word kolasis might bear the sense of cutting off, abscission, chastise or restrain.

The word kolasis does not require the connotation of conscious suffering. New Testament and Septuagint (Greek OT) usage will show what the lexicons detail: that the word generically means punishment, penalty, or correction.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have eternal life….For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life…” (John 3:16, Romans 6:23). In addition, it is no surprise to frequently find kolasis in the Septuagint connected with death – natural enough as putting to death is a punishment (perhaps the most severe that can be inflicted). Moreover, the conclusion that the general word punishment specifically means death is founded by taking the language at its primary meaning – a person must die and come to an end if they do not live forever. Thus, it appears plain enough; Jesus is warning that the unrighteous will suffer a capital punishment of death.

It is called an eternal punishment because, destroyed, the punished will cease to exist forever, never to live again. It is understood, then, not as an everlasting punishing, but as a one time punishment that will have everlasting consequences. Compare Hebrews 6:2 where the phrase ‘eternal judgment’ is found. God is not going to be judging for all eternity; rather he will make one judgment that will have permanent implications. Similarly, He will not be punishing for all eternity, but will punish once with death, and it will be final, unending, irreversible and eternal.

The phrase ‘eternal fire’ might have been difficult to interpret were it not for Jude 7 which tells us exactly what it means and how it was used by the biblical authors.

“…even as Sodom and Gomorrah…having…given themselves up to unclean desires and gone after strange flesh, have been made an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.” Jude states that Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example of those who underwent the punishment of eternal fire. That punishment was a complete reduction to dust and rubble; total annihilation and destruction and those cities do not exist anymore. The ‘eternal fire’ did not torment the cities, it eradicated them. They endured the punishment of a fire which consumes utterly with permanent results. Therefore, Jesus means to say, when he uses the phrase, ‘eternal fire,’ not a flame which will burn forever in order to torture the unsaved, rather, he means the unrighteous will be consumed and destroyed entirely by a fire that leaves nothing left for all eternity. As Hebrews phrases it, all that remains is a “…terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries” for “God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 10:27, 12:29).

Should any doubt remain as to what Jude is trying to communicate and what the phrase ‘eternal fire’ designates, one more passage should be examined.
“…He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter” (2 Peter 2:6). This is a parallel passage to Jude 7 with the extra detail as to what ‘eternal fire’ does and what is meant by ‘destruction’ – a reducing to ashes. Now this punishment is set forth as an example to the ungodly, why? Why would a ‘reduction to ashes’ be given to the ungodly as an example if that is not what their fate was going to be? What sense would that make to give them an example of a fire that consumes when their real punishment would be a fire that torments? It would make no sense at all. God gives the ungodly this example precisely because that is what will happen to the one that persists in wickedness.

***Mark 9:43-48
“…it is better for you to enter life crippled, than…to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire…where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.’”

The Greek word here translated ‘hell’ is Gehenna. This is a reference to the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom which lay to the south of Jerusalem where it was commonly used as a garbage receptacle. Worms consumed decaying material, and fires burned to dispose of trash, carcasses, and all types of waste.

The language of ‘worm’ and ‘fire’ comes directly from Isaiah 66:24, “Then they will go forth and look on the corpses of the men who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched; and they will be an abhorrence to all mankind.” The image is one of dead bodies rotting, being consumed by worms and fire. Note those agents are not tormenting living people, they are destroying corpses.

Jesus, once again, offers life as the reward, compelling us to interpret ‘going into Gehenna’ as a death sentence. It is not between alternatives of bliss or torment, it is, as biblically usual, 'life' and 'death.' It is better to lose an eye, or a hand, and still be alive (9:43), then to go into ‘gehenna’ where the entire body will be lost.

Gehenna was not a prison of torture it was a trash dump of putrefaction. A reference to Gehenna, then, would evoke images, not of torment, but of destruction and death.
In particular, fire in both testaments, I repeat, is a consistent and clear tool for consumption and especially so in this context of refuse and debris. Moreover, worms do not torture or inflict pain – that is senseless. To interpret it that way leads to the absurdities of there being immortal worms in hell that torture the living, in addition to making the Bible choose a worm as a means to communicate pain and agony. Such an idea is simply foolish.

The burden of proof, therefore, falls on the Orthodox again to show that ‘worm’ and ‘fire’ in this context are meant to connote ‘torment’ and not ‘consumption,’ and once again the history of Gehenna, the reference in Isaiah to ‘corpses,’ and the contrasting of life with death make this an impossibility.

Doesn’t ‘unquenchable fire’ mean an eternally burning fire? No, this has to be read back into the language once everlasting torment has been assumed. The phrase means to communicate the strength of a blaze, not its duration. In other words, ‘unquenchable’ has nothing to do with how long the fire burns, but is used to qualify its sheer intensity. It is the hottest conceivable fire that will not and cannot be quenched while it does it job of burning to ashes.
This can be seen vividly in Matthew 3:12, “…He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Fire, consumes, burns up, reduces to ashes, it is a simple and clear concept. It does not ‘torment’ the chaff; it ‘burns up’ the chaff. And if it weren’t clear enough, Jesus in Matthew 13:40, speaking of final judgment in a parable says, ‘just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age.’

Quite simply, to say ‘their worm will not die’ or ‘the fire will not be quenched’ does not necessitate a fire will always be burning and worms will always be living. Once again, this is language for the effectiveness, not the time extension of the worm and fire. It emphasizes the finality of the sentence, that there is no second chance, that the worms are not going to die and the fire is not going to be extinguished before it does its job reducing the carcasses to nothing. This is verbiage to guarantee death and total consumption – succumbing to these agents is inevitable precisely because they are not going to expire or be quenched.
That is to say, there is not one ray of hope the worms will crawl away or the fire will blow out and preserve something of the body. Instead, the worms are going to feed and the fire is going to consume until there is nothing left of the corpse, and there is nothing that will impede these forces. Anything subjected to such effective destroyers cannot escape complete destruction. Thus, the wicked will not enjoy an honorable burial; they will lose their entire body in a grisly cremation, tossed as garbage into Gehenna. And that is Jesus’ point – that it is better to lose an eye or a hand and live, then to die and have your entire body devoured by worms and fire.

“Say to the southern forest: ‘…I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees…the blazing flame will not be quenched, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it.’” (Ezekiel 20:47-48; see also Matthew 3:12, Jeremiah 7:20, 17:27 and Isaiah 1:31). Notice that the “blazing flame” and unquenchable fire are for consuming and scorching, and that it would be foolish to conclude the southern forest will be eternally ablaze after everything has been burnt up.
There is no reason to attach a figurative sense to the word die and ignore its primary meaning in clear prose.there is no lexical or linguistic evidence to suggest that die can even support a metaphorical meaning of ‘endless torment.’ Such a loose and arbitrary imposition on the word is a gross error without equivalent.

***2 Thessalonians 1:9
“These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power…”

The comma and the word away, both following the word ‘destruction’ are not a part of the original Greek. The text reads roughly as follows: who will pay the penalty of eternal destruction from the face of the lord and from the glory of his strength.
Paul is saying to the unrighteous that they will not escape, they will not be hidden, and they will not be away from the destructive presence of God.

Examine:II Thessalonians 1:6-10
Option 1: Paul wanted to communicate a fiery banishment to a state of ruin shut out from Christ’s person and shut out from Christ’s glorious strength. Option 2: Paul wanted to communicate a fiery punishment of destruction that comes from Christ’s person and from his glorious strength. The first option simply fails to account for how Paul could conceive that being deprived of Jesus’ strength would be a punishment.
Paul means that Christ in blazing fire, with mighty angels, dealing out retribution, will destroy sinners using his strength.

How is it possible to suffer an eternal destruction in limited time during the space of a single event? The only answer for this is that they are put to death and permanently destroyed, all of which happens on the day Christ returns – penalty paid in full. The Traditionalist’s explanation, however, demands that the sinner never actually fully pays the penalty, but begins to pay it on the day Christ returns and continues to pay forever afterward. The context, however, shows that they will pay all of it on the ‘day of the Lord.’

A similar passage in I Thessalonians buttresses the above conclusions. “…the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, ‘peace and safety’ then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape” (5:2,3). The same word in II Thess. 1:9 for destruction, olethros, is used here. Along with the ‘day of the Lord’ it is obvious that we have the same destruction spoken of in both places. This verse tells us that the destruction will overtake them suddenly and by surprise, like a thief in the night, and like a woman seized by labor pains. Notice, it is the destruction that surprises them, showing once again that Paul understood the destruction to be a single event, not an endless state.

A state of ruin away from the presence of Christ is neither violent, surprising, sudden nor fatal. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the deluge and destruction of Sodom, and therefore cannot be what Paul had in mind.(In Luke 17:26-30). Once again, it is destruction from the person of Christ that fits the criteria.

. But it is still left to assume, for argument, the sense of separation and determine if an annihilationist conclusion is impossible.
Certainly, if one suffers eternal ruin and is shut out from the presence of Christ, it cannot prove they have any conscious presence elsewhere, anymore than they would have a presence or consciousness somewhere after being killed. Consider the following biblical texts that highlight this: Genesis 6:7, 7:4, I Samuel 20:15, Amos 9:8, Zephaniah 1:2,3 and especially Exodus 32:12 and Jeremiah 28:16. In no case of this separation from the land’s or earth’s face are we to assume that they will have a presence elsewhere for the simple fact that they are dead.

Why then should we assume that a person suffering eternal ruin, away from the presence of the Lord, is alive and present somewhere else? An eternal ruin can just as easily refer to them being completely dead and destroyed; much like a demolished city.

Traditionalists are quick to exploit. They reason as follows: destroy does not have to mean the termination of existence, but can mean the loss of use and function.The point then is that, whether organic or inorganic, slowly or quickly, anything said to be lost, ruined or wasted, is to describe the cause for its fate of extinction. As ‘destroy’ primarily communicates something akin to demolish, damage beyond repair, reduce to useless remains, annihilate, kill, to put an end to, extinguish, etc., every usage of that word must bear some semblance to and dependence on this meaning. That is why to ‘ruin’ something always has as its goal, an object’s extinction. You do not ‘ruin’ something in order to perpetuate its existence and that is why anything spoken of as ‘ruined,’ connected to its root meaning of ‘destroyed,’ is understood to be an ‘extinction.’ So in the case where a ruinous cause does not describe the final effect, we recognize its extinction as implied and inherent. Therefore, the Traditionalists are completely outside their semantic rights to assume that an object made useless and ruined is to persist forever.

The Traditionalist, then, who will not properly define the Greek word apollumi as a destruction, ruining or loss ‘to extinction’ but as something connoting a ruining to a ‘useless and lower quality of existence,’ has to explain the following: Matthew 2:13; 5:29, Mark 3:6; 9:41; 11:18; 12:9, Luke 17:27, 29, 21:18, John 10:10, I Corinthians 1:19; 15:18, Hebrews 1:10-11, James 1:10-11, and Revelation 18:14.

Traditionalism is left, then, with most usages of the word clearly meaning ‘destruction to extinction,’ and a few usages where it does not, and they haven’t the slightest idea how to reconcile them. This is so because they have ignored basic laws of linguistics, as noted in the above points. This anarchy allows them to define a word in whatever way they need to in order to make it conform to a dogma. So being destroyed just means ‘ruined without destruction;’ perish means to be in a state of perishing, and to die means existing in a state separate from God.

What then is the significance of the adjective aionios when it is describing destruction? In my personal estimation, however ignorant it may be, the word aionios is best translated here as permanent and not eternal.Though near equivalents I think permanent better captures the sense of the word in various contexts. For example, in II Corinthians 4:18 – 5:4, the things which are seen are temporary but things that are not seen are permanent .That being said, II Thessalonians 1:9 appears to be a context more suitable to permanent than eternal because it would make little sense to speak of an infinite process of destroying. The sense then would be that sinners will suffer a permanent destruction from Christ.

But the point does not need to be pressed and the standard translation of ‘eternal destruction’ is adequate and can remain. It still carries the same meaning that they will be punished by Christ’s strength with a destruction that will be everlasting and irreversible. That is to say that an eternal destruction describes the permanent consequences of the destruction, not the duration of the destroying process. This sense is common when the word ‘eternal’ is paired with a ‘noun of action’ – for example, an eternal salvation, eternal redemption and eternal judgment (Hebrews 5:9, 6:2, 9:12); or an eternal sin (Mark 3:29), or an eternal fire (Jude 7). Neither the salvation, redemption, judgment, sin or fire are going to be eternally enduring actions, rather their results are what is meant as final and everlasting.

****Revelation 14:11
“…the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image….”

****Revelation 20:10
“And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

The genre is characterized by symbolism, cryptograms, visions, poetry, hyperbole, figures of speech, and metaphors.

Caution should then be taken to interpret the passages in light of the clearer testimony of the Bible, and not the other way around. That is, if the rest of the Bible in precise language tells us the fate of the unrighteous is death and destruction, we ought to bring apocalyptic texts into harmony with the unambiguous majority.

***Revelation 14:10,11
“…he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength…and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image….”

They cannot be taken literally unless we are prepared to have people drinking cups of wrath, a lamb watching torment, unending smoke from bodies that are being consumed but never totally, a man sitting on a cloud, sickles reaping grapes, a two-hundred mile river of blood from these grapes, angels pouring wrath from golden bowls, mountains vanishing and islands running away. No, these pictures communicate that drastic punishment will come from God upon those who support the evils of the world system and against those who persecuted Christians.

As symbols what then are they representing? The key language under examination has its precedence in the Old Testament and helps clarify what is meant. In particular, the ‘fire and brimstone’ comes from Genesis 19:24 as the instruments by which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed as Jude and Peter reference, as well as Ezekiel (see 38:18-23). Though the Apocalypse says that these will be an instrument of ‘torment’ that is only to add a detail to what they will do and not to disclose all that they do (see Revelation 18:8-10). “Fire and Brimstone,” as types, bring destruction and desolation, and would be so understood as the result of God ‘tormenting’ or punishing with it. This, strangely enough, can be shown from the following phrase, ‘the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever,’ which originates in Genesis 19:28 and is borrowed from Isaiah 34:9,10.

Without grasp of these roots and with a medieval preconception, we tend to read the verse to say, ‘the smoke from their constantly burning bodies keeps on ascending and will continue to rise without end because they will always be burning.’ Leaving aside the numerous problems when read that strict, that understanding is simply not consistent with biblical language. The verse is best understood to teach that the temporary occurrence of torment with ‘fire and brimstone’ produced a destruction that will last forever. That is the language of ‘forever ascending smoke’ – a symbolic reminder of a permanent and complete desolation.

As noted, this imagery is taken from Isaiah 34:9-11 where Edom is promised the vengeance of God, its land ‘becomes burning pitch,’ not ‘quenched night or day’ and its ‘smoke will go up forever.’ Now clearly, the fire has long gone out, and the smoke is not ascending anymore. The language then is a metaphorical way of impressing on the mind the absolute and irrecoverable ‘desolation’ of a land that ‘none will pass through forever and ever,’ condemned to ‘emptiness,’ occupied only by wild animals.

‘they have no rest day or night’
That is to say while they are alive and being judged (Chapter 16) they will find no intermission to their torments, but as these plagues end in death and have no reference to the afterlife we are compelled to understand the duration of torment to be finite, while the result of it (the smoke) is dramatically expressed in infinite terms to communicate its finality and permanence.

Moreover, the phrase seems to be contrasted with the saints who persevere and get to ‘rest from their labors’ (v.13). This lets them know that though they lack rest now and though life is easy for their persecutors, the tables will soon turn. In sum, the message to the Christians appears to be this: Those that oppose you will soon be punished with no rest from their torments and whose end is a cursed, ‘second death,’ but should your rest come in a blessed death, your reward will soon follow in eternal life (v.13, cf. 20:4-6; 21:4-7).

Putting all the pictures of the apocalypse together, as has been attempted, along with all the data from outside of the book, the probability that the meaning of the angelic message is an actual endless tormenting and not death and destruction is effectively zero.

In conclusion then, to understand Revelation 14:11 as depicting hell’s eternal torments, one has to ignore the context and setting of the judgment, ignore the details of the judgments in Chapter 16, and ignore the fact the judgments end in death. Further, one must interpret allegory literally, ignore the genre of the passage, maintain physical absurdities, and disregard similar language in the OT and matching language in the same book, which clearly demonstrates that the picture is one of destruction.

***Revelation 20:10
“…the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

This passage can no more prove the dogma of hell than one could prove Jesus will actually ride the sky on a white horse with fire for eyes, wearing a robe drenched in blood with a sword coming out of his mouth.

Since the ‘beast and false prophet’ are clearly symbols, their punishment must also be symbolical. How can the characters be emblematic and their fate not be?

‘Ages of ages’ is thus an indefinite amount of time finding its duration in connection to the object referred to.

We might also recall the smoke rising ‘forever and ever’ in Isaiah 34 and Revelation 19:3 as denoting an indefinite but limited amount of time. Also, 2 Kings 5:27, Psalm 83:17, Matthew 21:19, and Philemon 15 are among numerous examples of the word ‘forever’ limited to the duration of the entity spoken of.
As the ‘lake of fire’ symbolizes the ‘second death’ (20:14) there are no grounds to state that objects thrown into it are not exterminated.We must go against common sense (what happens to something thrown into a fire), common biblical usage of ‘fire and brimstone’ denoting destruction, and explicit statements of its fatal nature if we are to make the ‘lake of fire’ mean endless torment and not a picture of cremation.

Neither can it be urged that ‘the second death’ does not mean extinction, for again that is its most natural meaning. The burden falls on the orthodox to show that ‘second death’ means endless, conscious suffering, but again this would be too far a stretch. To call something ‘second’ it must bear some resemblance to a ‘first,’ and as the first death resembles nothing remotely close to a conscious torment, we are not justified in concluding that the ‘second’ will be of that nature. On the contrary, the first death resulted in the extinction of life, compelling the belief that the second death will do the same. The only difference being the first death is interrupted by a resurrection (20:12,13), the second time kills permanently.

Death and Hades (20:14) are also thrown into it. Everlasting torment would make nonsense of the symbolism, as ‘death and Hades’ cannot be tormented. Annihilation, on the other hand, suits the imagery perfectly. Clearly they are pictured as being abolished and brought to nothing for what else could it mean to put ‘death and Hades’ into the ‘second death?’ So when it is said that the beast will be go to ‘destruction’ (17:8,11), it is understood to mean that it will suffer the same fate of death and Hades – extinction.

Furthermore, Luke 4:34 and Mark 1:24 specifically mention that the demons expected and feared destruction, “Have you come to destroy us?” Matthew 8:29 and Mark 5:7 mention that the demons also expected and feared ‘torment,’ however this only shows there would be suffering involved in the punishment which would destroy them.

There is no place in the new creation for unrighteous beings, and consequently, the devil will have no existence in the new order where all submit to Christ, reconciled to God who is all in all. The point is most famously pictured in the apocalypse where envisioned are the creation of a new heaven and new earth for the first ones passed away. God will dwell there, He will wipe away every tear, there will no longer be death, mourning, crying or pain, for the ‘first things have passed away.’ God is ‘making all things new’ (Revelation 21:1-5). No wicked creature, angel or man, has any part or right to the new kingdom or new creation. Their part is in the lake of fire, which is the second death (21:8), which does not belong to the new creation. It, with all its inhabitants, will pass away with the first order of things. To imagine, then, after reading the above, that Paul, Peter and John envisioned a place of suffering, sentient, rebellious and unrighteous creatures, not only existing in the new creation, but existing for as long as the kingdom of God, is preposterous in the highest degree. Sin and sinners were all to be annihilated with the old creation and only righteousness would dwell in the new heavens and new earth.


Reason with the above,sleep on it and thank God in the morning for his love and mercy.

For those who still think eternal death isn't a big enough punishment,go to the peeps on death row and ask them what they think.Then tell them that if they weren't going to be kiiled that they could live FOREVER in a MUCH better permanent peaceful world without sorrow death or tears with clean air surrounded by nothing but beauty and perfection.Then tell them they still have to die..forever..that they won't get to see it for even a moment,but that they COULD'VE seen it for eternity had they chosen Jehovah's way .Still think the punishment isn't big?I'm thinkin I'd rather have my left arm chopped off and my right eye poked with a nail a million times than to miss out on what God has promised.


"When we seriously reflect on the significance of such a hopeful
and joy-inspiring vision of what the future holds for the
righteous, is it reasonable to believe that the one who intends to
create a world where “pain shall no longer exist,” and who
intends to “make all things new” will, on the other hand,
preserve a corresponding realm or co-existing dimension where
the wicked will be kept alive against their will to be consciously
tortured by fire throughout the endless stretches of eternity,
without the remotest possibility of relief or cessation? What
would be the benefit or purpose of this? And how would such
truly harmonize with the spirit of God’s intention to ultimately
“make all things new” through Jesus Christ?"`~Patrick Navas(who wrote a paper on Revelation 20:10..google it.)

Is eternal Hellfire realistic?

Much of this blog will be a reiteration of the Oh hell!! blog,to just remind those who still believe this "hellfire" nonsense that God is in fact love and what perish REALLY means.The hellfire doctrine is not just nonsense,it's satanic blasphemy against a holy loving merciful sovereign God.I would question the goodness of anyone's heart and the soundness of anyone's mind who thinks this doctrine is plausible.DO NOT BE MISLED.Now if there was scriptural evidence that wasn't symbolic or parable,then I too would have to accept this even though I don't understand it.BUT thankfully,Jehovah has not left those sincerely seeking for truth without biblical refutations of this heinous blasphemy against his character.

Now I am sure those who believe in this are tired of well meaning illustrations about how would we feel if our children sinned then having to watch them burn alive for an eternity OR FOR EVEN A MOMENT.Some would respond and say God's holiness is without bounds and that would demand a gigantic punishment.Well,it does.But not the kind you have in mind.

If you say his holiness is infinitely greater than ours and that would dictate an eternity in fire,I would say to you that his love and mercy is also infinitely greater than ours and that would dictate no such thing.You're arguing something that is NOT biblically stated and from emotionalism and men's ideas.Yah wants sinners to repent..he doesn't want anyone to die but they HAVE to,or we would have chaos with people unwilling to serve him responsibly and wholly.(and holily<--that a word?)A world of peace can't thrive with willful sinners.A world of peace can't thrive with people burning alive forever beneath them either.(And the universal salvation folks,God ,again,is love.He isn't going to force people who want no part with him or who refuse to fully conform to his standards to appreciate the provisions and the eternal life in peace he promises to those who DO love him and desire to obey and please him(like Jesus most perfectly represented).He does not want a world of forced love and obedience.i.e. robots)

Jeremiah 32:35:they built the high places of Ba´al that are in the valley of the son of Hin´nom, in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through [the fire] to Mo´lech, a thing that I did not command them, neither did it come up into my heart to do this detestable thing

So if a few minutes of a child in fire repulses Jehovah,imagine the disdain and horror he would feel watching people burn alive forever.And if you say,oh those are innocent babies,I would say we are ALL children of God.He makes the rain fall and the sun shine on everyone because HIS DESIRE is for EVERYONE to be loving and obedient.He isn't being deceptive when he says "SOMETHING LIKE THIS" would NEVER enter his heart..he means it.In a big way.This literal eternal fire(ACTUALLY symbolic) nonsense serves no purpose.However,killing people would.He doesn't want evil to be ANYWHERE.It would still be somewhere,quite prevalently and noisily,if possibly billions of people were screaming crying and cursing in anguish for an eternity.WAKE UP!

Jesus couldn't even stand to see a leper or demon possessed person tormented temporarily(and I'm sure at least some of these folks were serious sinners)..He healed them all if they only asked.And this is the kind of heavenly king you think will be tolerable of what your preacher tickles your ears with?The eternal worm and "drop of water if only" nonsense being spouted as something LITERAL???This would be an essential tool in the construction of an atheist ...If I KNEW this false doctrine were true,I would certainly have to admit God has some sadist characteristics and I would be forced to examine whether I could serve this kind of God.From my understanding of the marvelous word,Satan is the sadist.And Jehovah doesn't even want to kill anyone,much less watch them burn FOREVER like a madman!I'm not saying I for sure WOULDN'T accept it because I am just dust,clay in the potter's hands,but thankfully Jah has alleviated any doubt to those willing to break it down,recognize symbolism for what it is,and honestly define all these words he uses to describe what REALLY happens to the unrighteous.

Essentially,we need to examine every word that is erroneously translated as "hell" in the bible.Hell isn't in the bible.Sheol,hades(ok these two basically mean grave or tomb) and gehenna are.Gehenna is the only one that should have fire imagery attached,and only symbolically..the Jews at the time would've had a big ol garbage dump(an actual location..google it) where there was fire that annihilated whatever was thrown in it turning it to ashes or zilch in mind when Jesus spoke about gehenna,which has erroneously been translated as hell.Lepers and the like were also cast there away from society.That is what the Jews had in their minds when Jesus was preaching about "hell"...ostracization from God,destruction.Research it yourself.Also important to note:Spirit(pneuma),means "life" or "breath" that Jah can restore in the resurrection..that is what returns to him when you die,the prospect of your being made alive again..Soul can mean body or life..It means life in Matt 10:28..no more hope to ever live again if your body and ALSO your prospect for resurrection is GONE,annihilated,just like the lake of fire,the 2nd FINAL DEATH(means cessation of existence),with no hope of resurrection.The word for forever doesn't even have to mean forever.Just as long as whatever it is describing lasts.Fire,for instance,just till whatever it is burning is destroyed..unquenched until whatever it is burning is destroyed.

To quote Steve Scianni from his essay "everlasting torment examined"

"Ages of ages is an indefinite amount of time finding its duration in connection to the object referred to.

We might also recall the smoke rising forever and ever in Isaiah 34 and Revelation 19:3 as denoting an indefinite but limited amount of time. Also, 2 Kings 5:27, Psalm 83:17, Matthew 21:19, and Philemon 15 are among numerous examples of the word forever limited to the duration of the entity spoken of.

Examine Jonah 2:6: To the roots of the mountains I sank down;
the earth beneath barred me in FOREVER.
But you brought my life up from the pit,
O LORD my God."

So Jonah said he was barred in the fish forever..Was he?Obviously,forever often means "for as long as what is spoken of lasts" in the bible.


Also,unquenchable fire didn't preserve forests or anything else in the bible it touched but rather annihilated whatever it did.See(PLEASE)Ezekial 20:47,Amos 5:6,and Matt 3:12 for examples of what unquenchable fire *really* does.

The bible is a marvelous puzzle,a tapestry of harmonious truth.When we see those vivid symbolisms being proclaimed in the NT,we have references in the OT and elsewhere in the NT to help us make sense of them ..for instance(this was in my last hell blog):

Isaiah 34:9,10:It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever

The above is referring to the wicked city of Edom..Go there today and see if you see literal smoke and fire!Nope,it is emphasizing the desolation and the absolute destruction. Same sort of terminology is used in Revelation to erroneously "prove" on a daily basis that a God of absolute love burns his wayward inherently sinful children alive forever.Examine also:

Jude 1:7 (King James Version)
7Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. explained HERE:

2 Peter 2:6:and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and DESTROYED them by burning them to ASHES, making them an example to ungodly people of what is going to happen to them; (what REALLY happens in fire(ashes)..eternal simply emphasizes the finality of the destruction,which the fire SYMBOLIZES.The length of the finality if it.)


Isaiah 47:14:Behold, they shall be as stubble(what REALLY happens in fire)

And for those who say death is no kinda torment..I ask you..If a holy merciful God was before you right now,or he sent His son to represent Him before you right now...AND you were told of the REMARKABLE kingdom to come where conditions were described to you similar to this:

"Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. :And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. :And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.Nation will not lift up sword against nation, And never again will they train for war.They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain;for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.The former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.In his days may the righteous flourish, And abundance of peace till the moon is no more.May he also rule from sea to sea And from the River to the ends of the earth "(Rev 21:3-5,Micah 4:3,Is 11:6-9,65:17,Ps 72:7,8)

If you heard that majestic description of the coming kingdom ...
Would you wail and cry and weep and "gnash teeth" if he said to you something like this:

"You will die in your sin. Where I am going you cannot come you are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a manslayer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. you do not listen, because you are not from God. I never knew you! Get away from me, you worker of lawlessness. "(John 8:43-47,Matt 7:21-23)


Or would you shrug your shoulders and say "big deal..goodnight"..If you say "big deal.goodnight.To eternal sleep I go..no biggie."..then your complacency and disregard alone merits your destruction.It's a HUGE deal to be killed instead of afforded an eternity in a paradisaic new world under the Most High of the Universe and his appointed merciful loving king for a literal eternity in unfathomably fantastic benevolent conditions.

One lady on youtube said to simply perish forever would be blissful.My idea of bliss is different(the eternal kingdom of God)..it would be TORMENT for me to miss out on this..to not be able to love and serve my God and his Christ forever!Imagine further,too,the enhancement of the torment if you assumed you were saved or righteous or close to God.If you assumed you knew it all and deserved to inherit these blessings(like the pharisees).Then ..BAM!..not so much !If that wouldn't make you cry and gnash your teeth what would?The fate of the wicked is punishment according to whatever their sins are(their sins aren't infinite!),a just one that leads to the second death where,yes,even hell and death are thrown!Death is said to be "no more" when thrown there which SHOULD appeal to your logic and help you discern that whatever gets thrown in the lake of fire doesn't get infinitely "preserved" but rather infinitely and quite literally destroyed.There is simply no "eternal destroying process" but rather eternal destruction from which there can be no redemption.

Now to go round & round if you'll indulge me for a minute..If what I have presented FROM THE WORD OF GOD is accepted by sincere hearts and utilized minds,then the whole "automatic immortal soul" thing orthodox Christians embrace like a baby does a soft blankey,is NOT TRUE.And you know what else that means!Yep,Jesus REALLY died.For 3 days.So the immortal soul,hellfire and trinity are all refuted in one fell swoop.

"No one ever REALLY dies"...sounds like Satan's lie in the garden of Eden to me!!If a soul never REALLY died,then Satan wasn't REALLY a liar.BREAKING news:If you are alive in heaven or hell,then you haven't perished,in any respect.And you are making God a liar.To which I say "Let God be found true though every man be found a liar!"No wonder we have been instructed repeatedly to "make sure of all things"..thoroughly EXAMINE the scriptures "in an undertone day and night"..Satan's deceptions have gone wild,like the girls in those stupid 10 dollar videos.He's a crafty lil critter,but we can't say we haven't been warned.I would also like to encourage you to study Plato's influence on early church fathers.They thought Plato was inspired by God.Then you'll spy the TRUE origin of the trinity and immortal soul.

The following is from this website:http://www.british-israel.ca/immortalsoul.htm

Plato, again taken from the Phaedo:

"The soul whose inseparable attitude is life will never admit of life's opposite, death. Thus the soul is shown to be immortal, and since immortal, indestructible...Do we believe there is such a thing as death? To be sure. And is this anything but the separation of the soul and body? And being dead is the attainment of this separation, when the soul exists in herself and separate from the body, and the body is parted from the soul. That is death.... Death is merely the separation of the soul and body."

"Statements by such ancient Greek and Roman writers as Polybius, Cicero, Seneca, Strabo---and even Plato himself---have led some modern historians to question whether Plato really personally believed the immortal soul doctrine. They suggest that he may have simply popularized what he knew to be a fiction as a means of keeping the citizenry in line through the fear of mysterious "unseen things" beyond this life."

"Many of the early theologians and scholars of the professing Christian religion---including such men as Origen, Tertullian and Augustine---were closely associated with Platonism.Tertullian (A.D. 155-220), for example, wrote: "For some things are known even by nature: the immortality of the soul, the instance, is held by many ... I may use, therefore, the opinion of Plato, when he declares: 'Every soul is immortal'" (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. III).

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Col. 2:8).

I can only imagine Satan getting some real kicks from this abominable doctrine ,taunting Jehovah,saying something like "I have them believing you are like me..that you would enjoy this kind of ridiculous thing..What do you think about that?"To which Jehovah might say something like: "I am love.My good sheep know this.Nothing like this would ever enter my pure undefiled holy heart.They will see this.They will know."(Proverbs 27:11)

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death

Ezekial 28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee:thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more(If he's alive and well pokin souls with pitchforks in an eternal literal fire,God is lying here)

Psalm 146:4 His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish(remember spirit means "breath of life" that can be returned upon resurrection)

2 Thessalonians 1:9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction (helps explain what eternal fire REALLY means)

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.(a destroyed soul!..can't redefine destroyed here unless you think it's the literal body burning alive here too...the same meaning of the word destroy for BOTH)

John 3:16 God loved world so much he sent his son so we may not PERISH(which means kaput)

Genesis 3:19-return to dust (which means kaput)

Couple facts about "hell"
1.Job begged to go there
2.Jesus went there.For 3 whole days.

As for the Rich man and Lazarus ..it IS a parable in a SERIES of parables.Hellfire spouters don't like to admit this because for some reason they think the names used HAVE to make it literal(they don't!) and tickling ears with traditional nonsense must be the desire of the day.If it sounds like a parable ,talks like a parable ,in a series of parables,it must be a parable.Which means it isn't literal. That alone should be a good enough reason not to build literal doctrines upon it's clearly parabolic intent.