ETERNAL TORMENT - IMAGE OR REALITY?

[John146]

To whom was this parable given?

Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
continued through verse 31

His disciples were there as well (go to the beginning of Luke 16 and you can see that). There's no reason to think that the disciples couldn't learn anything from what He was saying just because He was addressing the Pharisees specifically in part of what He said at that time.

Mat 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Keep reading what comes after that.

35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

In His parables Jesus revealed "things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world" so how can you say that we can't establish doctrine from His parables? Do you not believe He taught "things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world" in His parables? Do you think no one, including believers, can understand the things He taught in His parables? The OT contains little to nothing about the kingdom of God/heaven, yet Jesus said plenty about the kingdom in His parables. Can we learn nothing about the kingdom of God/heaven from His parables?

P.S., Just how do you know this?

Know what exactly, that Jesus was speaking of real people and places in Luke 16:19-31? It should be obvious. I would hope I don't have to explain to you who Abraham and Moses are. And I highly doubt Lazarus was a made up person. Why give a made up person a name instead of just calling him the beggar? That's not something Jesus would have done, IMO. Also, it should be obvious that Hades is a real place because it will be cast into the lake of fire (Rev 20:14). I highly doubt a fictitious place would be cast into the lake of fire.

[John 8:32]

Lets think about this... Moses died... He also appeared at the mount of Transfiguration and talked to Jesus... Did he do this unconscious?

Did he do this at all?

Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

It was a vision, it did not happen in fact, only in their minds.

I think your taking this out of context... This "know nothing" is in context to the preceding verses that the living have a hope but the sinners do not. He is juxtaposing the difference between the righteous and the sinners in chapter 9. THe righteous he identifies with the living and the sinners with the dead... THerefore the living (righteous) have a hope but the dead (sinners) know nothing and they have no more reward... It can't be both ways... the living cannot know they have a hope and also have no more reward. Its talking about two different peoples as does the book of Ecclesiastes (9:2). This "know nothing" is directly related to their "hope" meaning they have no revelation of it...

The context is Solomon is speaking about both righteous and wicked. The point is that at death, consciousness stops. There are more scriptures on this and if I have time, I will post them later.

This was Jesus speaking of Himself prior to the His resurrection. This was before saints were in heaven

Exactly. At the time Christ was on earth, no saints were in heaven. We are in agreement.

I see this as the 2nd coming. When Jesus returns he is "BRINGING" the saints with Him. Where is Jesus coming from? Heaven
So if He is bringing Saints with Him they must also be coming with Him from heaven...
He is talking about their souls coming back with his and then their dead bodies will get up out of the graves and meet in the air and be transformed into the glorified body.

Who then are these dead in Christ who rise to meet Him in the atmosphere (air)?

This is talking about the resurrected of the glorified body not the state of the bodiless soul before the resurrection. Jesus was the first one resurrected from the dead and received and glorified body. All other saints will receive a glorified body at the His coming. This does not negate that the souls of believers that died are currently with Him consciously. They simply do not have a body...

You forgot the part about them being asleep meaning dead...

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

No It says their souls are in heaven (where the alter is)...

Rev 11:10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
Rev 11:11 And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them.
Rev 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.

Where were these guys for 3-1/2 days? And they don't get very far, because their enemies on the earth can still see them in a cloud.

Agreed, body would rise but his soul would go long before then to be with the Lord...

I am glad we can agree on something.

Do you interpret these the same?

[9] After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, [10] and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation [belongs] to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" - Rev 7:9-10 NKJV

So you believe that the saints that come out of the great tribulation and are standing before the throne are worshiping and singing to God unconsciously?

[2] And I saw [something] like a sea of glass mingled with fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image and over his mark [and] over the number of his name, standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God. [3] They sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying: "Great and marvelous [are] Your works, Lord God Almighty! Just and true [are] Your ways, O King of the saints! [4] Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For [You] alone [are] holy. For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have been manifested." - Rev 15:2-4 NKJV

Do you also believe these saints on the sea of glass are singing the Song of the Moses and the Lamb unconsciously? Or is it just a metaphor too

I think to say that souls are unconscious with the Lord is a stretch in light of the verses in scripture that depict souls in heaven with cognitive reasoning...

Just out of curiosity, how long is the tribulation and what ends it?

The tribulation is 3-1/2 years long and is ended by the return of Christ. They come out of it. When? Before it begins? Or at the end of the tribulation at the reutrn of Christ?

Revelation is a prophetic book shrouded in mystery, where as 1 Cor 15 and 1 Ths 4 are direct teaching on the resurrection at the return of Christ.

I believe it best that we agree to disagree.

[divaD]

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


As everyone probably knows by now, my conclusions are 'that able to destroy', the sense is meaning able to kill. For the time being, and for the sake of argument, this conclusion is correct.

Let's first look at this from a human perspective. Someone kills your body. Is that the end at that point? No, because during this death, one's soul and spirit are seperated. This means that the body by itself, it has absolutely no awareness of it's surrounding. But that doesn't mean the soul wouldn't. How do we know? Simple....but are not able to kill the soul. Obviously then, even tho man is able to kill the body, he is unable to kill the soul. So that means the soul has to go on existing somewhere after the body is dead. This is why soul sleep can't be Biblical, since it would imply that man was able to kill the soul as well, if that soul too was unaware of any of it's surroundings after the body had died. Soul sleep is easily refuted with this passage, since it would contradict this part...but are not able to kill the soul. Now that we've discussed that part..the physical death..let's focus on the next part, the 2nd death.

Matthew 10:28 goes on to say...but rather fear him which is able to destroy(kill) both soul and body in hell. This would be the 2nd death. What happened to the body when it was killed in the first death? It was compltelely unaware of it's surrounding. But now we're at a different level. Now that same soul that has departed, we're told God is able to destroy(kill) that soul in hell. With what happens in the first death in mind, the body dying, the soul and spirit separating from the body, what then happens once the soul is destroyed(killed)? Does the soul have a soul of it's own, and that it departs from the soul that has been killed, thus suffering fully aware forever? It's only logical, that in level 1, meaning the first death, the body is unaware of it's surrounding, then so must the same be said in level 2, meaning the 2nd death, in regards to the soul being destroyed(killed). It too would not be aware of it's surroundings at that point, unless the soul possesses something within itself that separates after death, the same way the body has something that separates after death. You end up with a nonsensical conclusion if the soul can be killed by God, yet still be fully aware of it's surroundings.

[John146]

Just because there were things not revealed in the OT writings, doesn't mean all things presented in the NT writings are false. Many things presented in the NT were either initially presented, or detailed in a much greater manner.

Exactly. I just posted Matt 13:35 in a different post for a different reason but it applies here as well:

Matt 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Clearly, some of the things Jesus taught had been "kept secret from the foundation of the world", so just because something is either not taught or not clearly taught in the OT doesn't mean it isn't taught in the NT and can't be true.

Because 'death' is only cessation of life of the body. Death fundamentally is separation. Separation of the spirit from the body. or Separation from the being and the Lord.

Amen. In scripture that is what death clearly means, but for some reason we have some people here who think the word death is synonymous with the word annihilation.

Reading the passage this way, however, makes Jesus a perpetuator and teacher of untruth. Effectively it makes Jesus a spreader of lies. Not a good direction to place Him. All of His parables were grounded in truth; not lies; all possible situations with possible and expectable outcomes. Farmers farming. Planters planting. Workers working. All examples of real life, actual, expectable events.

Exactly. So, even if Luke 16:19-31 was a parable a person being in torment in a place called Hades would have to be a real possible situation in reality or else Jesus would be using a situation that did not even exist in reality, which he never did in His parables.

Like you indicated, His parables spoke of farmers farming, planters planting, workers working and things like that. While those things all represented something else in reality in His parables, they were all things that described real types of people, places and actions in real life. Therefore, a rich man dying and being taken to a place called Hades and being in torment there must represent a real life situation even if it was a parable. There's just no way around it. Whether Luke 16:19-31 is a parable or not, Jesus taught there that the wicked experience torment in Hades after they physically die.

And if interpretted in this manner, it makes Jesus a teacher of untruth and lies; false expectations, and one who cannot be trusted at His word.

I agree. Jesus never used parody in His teachings.

[John146]

That is not what I said. I said the story is fiction, just as the story of The Commended Fraud in the same chapter., not Hades/Sheol.

Okay, so you believe Hades is a real place. Why would the portrayal of someone being in torment there not also be real then as far as that being an indication that the wicked are in torment in that real place called Hades?

That Jesus did employ satire at times is quite evident in the gospels. Examples of this include, Matthew 9:13, where Jesus exempts the Pharisees from His redemptive plan because He only came for sinners, not “the righteous” and again in Luke 13:13 where Jesus ironically expresses that prophets cannot possibly perish anywhere except in Jerusalem. Also in Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus silences the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection by expanding upon the nature of angels (verse 30). I don’t think for a moment that Jesus was seriously trying to convince the Sadducees of something they did not believe in by elaborating upon something else they equally dismissed as nonexistent.

I'm not really seeing how those are examples of satire, but I'll assume for the sake of argument that they are instead of wasting time arguing about that. Regardless, there is no indication whatsoever that Jesus was using satire in Luke 16:19-31. Not even close. Just because the Pharisees were there doesn't mean He was using something that only they believed but wasn't true to illustrate a point. The Pharisees were wrong about a number of things, but not everything. They did believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead so they were correct about that and they were correct in their understanding of other things as well, including their understanding of where the spirits of people went when they physically died, IMO.

[divaD]

The point is this, the sense here for destroy seems to mean to torment, which then agrees with the spirit beings fates in the LOF as per Rev 20:10. But in my other post, when it came to the fates of humans, in regards to destroy, the sense is to be killed. And this is what I've been saying all along. The fates of spirit beings and humans are different. spirit beings are cast into the LOF and are tormented for ever and ever. Humans are cast into the LOF to be destroyed, as of they had never been. Obviously God's mercy upon men is radically different from His mercy on spirit creatures, in which there is no mercy for them.

Try the other way round. Torment is the image; destruction the reality.

QUESTION: If (basanos) torment represents imagery for something
other than personal pain and anguish in Rev.20:10, what
might that reality be?

LET'S FIRST LOOK AT THE GREEK WORD "BASANOS" TO SEE IF IT IS EVER USED IN SCRIPTURE TO REPRESENT SOMETHING OTHER THAN A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF PAIN AND ANGUISH.

In support of the idea that torment need not be understood simply as a conscious experience of suffering, the ancient Greek Septuagint Version of the Hebrew Scriptures employs the word (basanos) used in Rev.20:10 for torment with reference to destruction and death. We read in Ezekiel 3:20 for instance:

And when the righteous turn away from his righteousness,
and commits a trespass and I shall bring [basanos] before
him; he shall die".

In the New Testament, we also find torment (basanos) associated with destruction. On some occasions, for example, demons being confronted by Jesus demand to know if he has come to "basanos" them (Mt.8:29, Mk.5:7, Lu.8:28) and on other occasions to "apollumi" or utterly destroy them. (Mk.1:24, Luke 4::34)

In terms of the book of Revelation itself, passages that employ (basanos) torment include Rev.9:5; 11:10; 14:10, 11; Although the fiery torments mentioned in these judgments in Revelation are not final, they are painful (like a scorpion's sting), devastating and sometimes lethal for those who experience them. However, Revelation also employs (basanos) torment as a figure for destruction.

In Revelation 18, for example, John describes the fiery destruction of Babylon the Great as torment (18:9, 10). But Babylon is not a person or a group of persons that individually or collectively experience personal pain and anguish. Rather Babylon represents a vast social, economic and religious system. Babylon in Revelation 18 is personified as a licentious queen who commits adultery with the kings of the earth, trades with merchants, and deceptively acts as a sanctuary for God's people. BABYLON CANNOT POSSIBLY EXPERIENCE CONSCIOUS SENSATIONS OF PAIN, JUST AS SHE CANNOT LITERALLY EXPERIENCE CONSCIOUS SENSATIONS OF PLEASURE AS SHE COMMITS FORNICATION WITH THE KINGS OF THE EARTH. Basanos torment in Revelation 18, is simply imagery for destruction (18:19, 21).

ETERNAL TORMENT: The smoke of Babylon's torment (destruction) rises forever. (Rev.19:3) This smoke isn't evidence of "collective pain and anguish", but of fiery destruction which lasts one full hour (Rev.18:10, 17). The image of smoke rising eternally represents for all perpetuity, a "powerful reminder of God's devastating judgment" on a corrupt social, economic and religious system. And Bablyon's brief torment qualifies as "eternal" simply because the implications of her destruction are eternal.

- Is it possible that the "eternal torment" of Revelation 20:10
is equivalent imagery of destruction?

This was def a good post. A lot of good reasoning there. Much of what you said, I tend to agree with. But Rev 19:10 does say this..and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. How do we ignore this part..day and night for ever and ever..in relation to this part...shall be tormented? Since this would occur outside of this current age, in which this age obviously has an end, how then can we understand this any differently than what it seems to plainly state, being the next age has no end?
.

[John146]

No, you are not. The spirit of man or soul does depart. Is it conscious without a body? No.

Please tell me, why would Paul have said that it was far better for him to depart and go be with the Lord than to remain in his body with the saints in Philippi if he was not going to have any consciousness when he went to be with the Lord?

21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: 24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

How can it be true that "to die is gain" if you become completely unconscious upon death? That makes no sense. How could it have been far better for Paul to be completely unconscious than to remain conscious and physically alive? That also makes no sense.

[John146]

No basis other than Christ's own words...

Mat 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
Mat 13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
Mat 13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Mar 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
Mar 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

So explain to me what this means

Did Jesus only speak parables to unbelievers like the Pharisees? No. Those passages are mostly speaking about His parables in their relation to the wicked, but if you look at the Mark 4 parable again you should see that the purpose of His parables for believers is so they can "know the mystery of the kingdom of God". He told a number of parables regarding the kingdom of God, right? Are believers not supposed to learn anything about the kingdom of God from those parables? Of course we are!

Since we've been talking a lot about Luke 16, look at the parable in Luke 16:1-8, for example. That was addressed specifically to the disciples. Were the disciples not supposed to learn anything from that parable? Of course they were. So, it should be very obvious that parables can be used for doctrine since Jesus addressed some of His parables directly to believers. And it's not reasonable to think that we can't learn anything from the parables He addressed specifically to unbelievers. Of course we can.

and how this is false.

It's not false because Jesus said it, so why would you ask me "how this is false"? It's your understanding of His teachings that is false, not His teachings. Your contention that we can't use His parables for doctrine is utterly false and I think that is clear to everyone here except for you.

[John146]

Did he do this at all?

Mat 17:9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

It was a vision, it did not happen in fact, only in their minds.

I completely disagree. Just because it was a vision doesn't mean it wasn't something that actually happened. Visions can be of real things. All He was telling them was not to tell anyone what they had seen. There is no indication whatsoever that what they had seen didn't actually happen. Here is another vision:

2 Cor 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth ) such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth ) 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Was Paul making this vision up? Was there not really a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven/paradise "and heard unspeakable words"? Of course there was. Why would the disciples have a vision of Jesus speaking with Moses and Elijah if those two were unconscious at the time? Was Jesus trying to confuse them by making it appear as though Moses and Elijah were conscious and that they could speak with Him?

Who then are these dead in Christ who rise to meet Him in the atmosphere (air)?

It is the bodies of the dead in Christ that will rise from the dead and then their spirits will again unite with their bodies which will be changed to be immortal and they will then be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. Who else could be coming with Christ at that time except the spirits of the dead in Christ?

1 Thess 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

You forgot the part about them being asleep meaning dead...

1Co 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

This is only speaking of being dead/asleep bodily. When Christ died was He then completely unconscious? If so does that mean when He told the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that day (Luke 23:43) they would be together but would be unconscious in paradise? Was Jesus telling him in effect that "You get to be with me today in paradise but you won't know it because we'll be unconscious. Isn't that exciting?".

[John146]

Matthew 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


As everyone probably knows by now, my conclusions are 'that able to destroy', the sense is meaning able to kill. For the time being, and for the sake of argument, this conclusion is correct.

Let's first look at this from a human perspective. Someone kills your body. Is that the end at that point? No, because during this death, one's soul and spirit are seperated. This means that the body by itself, it has absolutely no awareness of it's surrounding. But that doesn't mean the soul wouldn't. How do we know? Simple....but are not able to kill the soul. Obviously then, even tho man is able to kill the body, he is unable to kill the soul. So that means the soul has to go on existing somewhere after the body is dead. This is why soul sleep can't be Biblical, since it would imply that man was able to kill the soul as well, if that soul too was unaware of any of it's surroundings after the body had died. Soul sleep is easily refuted with this passage, since it would contradict this part...but are not able to kill the soul. Now that we've discussed that part..the physical death..let's focus on the next part, the 2nd death.

Matthew 10:28 goes on to say...but rather fear him which is able to destroy(kill) both soul and body in hell. This would be the 2nd death. What happened to the body when it was killed in the first death? It was compltelely unaware of it's surrounding. But now we're at a different level. Now that same soul that has departed, we're told God is able to destroy(kill) that soul in hell. With what happens in the first death in mind, the body dying, the soul and spirit separating from the body, what then happens once the soul is destroyed(killed)? Does the soul have a soul of it's own, and that it departs from the soul that has been killed, thus suffering fully aware forever? It's only logical, that in level 1, meaning the first death, the body is unaware of it's surrounding, then so must the same be said in level 2, meaning the 2nd death, in regards to the soul being destroyed(killed). It too would not be aware of it's surroundings at that point, unless the soul possesses something within itself that separates after death, the same way the body has something that separates after death. You end up with a nonsensical conclusion if the soul can be killed by God, yet still be fully aware of it's surroundings.

It's not nearly as nonsensical as concluding that it's saying the body and soul will be annihilated. That would mean the verse is saying to not fear those who can annihilate the body but cannot annihilate the soul. The problem with that is when someone kills someone's body they are not annihilating the person's body. So, how can annihilation be what Jesus had in mind there?

[Vanderhoven7]

This was def a good post. A lot of good reasoning there. Much of what you said, I tend to agree with. But Rev 19:10 does say this..and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. How do we ignore this part..day and night for ever and ever..in relation to this part...shall be tormented? Since this would occur outside of this current age, in which this age obviously has an end, how then can we understand this any differently than what it seems to plainly state, being the next age has no end?
.

Hi DivaD,


I hear what you're saying; torment may be equated with destruction in some passages, but in Revelation 20:10 there is an active or ongoing element to the devil's torment. The tormenting process itself never seems to end. The fire never seems to be quenched in this foreboding lake. Doesn't this suggest literal torment? Now what we would need to demonstrate that the active torment of Revelation 20:10 can still represent imagery for destruction - is scriptural precedent. In order to justify this as a possibility, the Holy Spirit would have had to use similar metaphorical language to describe another temporal judgment with comparative consequences - language that perhaps the Apostle John might have drawn on to symbolically depict the devil's doom in Revelation 20:10.


LET'S READ ABOUT EDOM'S DOOM IN ISAIAH 34:5-10:

(5) My sword has drunk its fill in the heavens; see it descends
in judgment on Edom, THE PEOPLE I HAVE TOTALLY DESTROYED.

(6) The sword of the Lord is bathed in blood, it is covered
with fat - the blood of lambs and goats, fat from the
kidneys of rams. For the Lord has a sacrifice in Bozrah
and a great slaughter in Edom.
(7) And the wild oxen will fall with them, the bulls and the
calves and the great bulls. Their land will be drenched
with blood, and the dust will be soaked with fat.

(8) For the Lord has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution
to uphold Zion's cause.

(9) EDOM'S STREAMS WILL BE TURNED INTO PITCH, HER DUST INTO
BURNING SULPHUR; HER LAND WILL BECOME BLAZING PITCH!

(10) IT WILL NOT BE QUENCHED NIGHT AND DAY; ITS SMOKE WILL
RISE FOREVER. FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION, IT WILL LIE
DESOLATE; NO ONE WILL EVER PASS THROUGH IT AGAIN.


- Is Isaiah's language somewhat familiar? (Compare Rev.20:10)

- What torment (or destructive judgment) was to fall on Edom?

NOTE: Edom's doom is vividly described for us in this Isaiah 34 passage. Her land was to be turned into a veritable lake of unquenchable fire and burning sulphur, much like that pictured in Revelation 20:10.


Is Edom's destruction an example of eternal torment? (9, 10)

- Is Edom still a land of blazing pitch and burning sulphur?

- Was there ever any burning pitch?

- If Edom wasn't to be tormented by unquenchable blazing
pitch, day and night, forever and ever, what is this
passage saying then?

- Is it possible that this Isaiah 34 passage is symbolic;
that one would have to decode these verses - to de-image
them to make any real sense out of them? AND...

- Is it possible that the active torment imagery in this
passage is really symbolism for - complete destruction?


What destructive judgment actually befell Edom?

NOTE: Subsequent to Isaiah's prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar's army, "which took pride in shedding blood and laying countries waste" swept into Edom and slaughtered the inhabitants of Bozrah and other cities. According to Matthew Henry's commentary on this passage, "Quite beyond his (Nebuchadnezzar) design, he was fulfilling what God here threatened against His and His people's enemies".


SUMMING UP EDOM'S TORMENT: The lake of fire in Edom's judgment was not literal; instead it was imagery representing another reality - that of total destruction (verse 5). The never ending torment pronounced upon Edom figuratively signified that the nature of her devastation would be complete and eternal; her political structures, her people, her power wealth and influence would, once and for all time, be completely destroyed or eradicated. (Compare Ezekiel 35:1-9)

- Could our Revelation text mean the same fate awaits the
devil, the beast, the false prophet, death and Hades as well?
(i.e. that all elements of the devil's kingdom will eventually
perish i.e. be totally destroyed)

[percho]

Huh?

So no one in history has gone anywhere once they died? No soul has ever departed from the body at death? Am I understanding you correctly?

How do you understand this verse?

[8] We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. - 2Cr 5:8 NKJV

This verse states that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This is not talking about at the ressurectoin because they would not be absent from the body then?

Paul wrote.


We, absent from the body? I guess we can say that the "we," are we souls. The soul would rather be absent from the body. What body? For we (souls) know that if our earthly house of tabernacle (the body to be absent from) were dissolved,
Such as shall we say of, the dead in Christ of 1 Thess 4:16, by now I would think the earthly house of tabernacle, of their souls would be dissolved, that is dust and maybe a few bones. Well that does leave the soul, without a body, therefore naked. John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions:(rooms, dwelling places, abodes) if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. Now do you die and go get or receive or put it on? NO. You always hear V2 at funerals and I have never understood why for it is directly proportional to John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also. You don't die and go get it, He brings it with him.
Back to 2 Cor. 5 V1-3 we (souls) have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house (mansion) which is from heaven: If so be that being clothed we shall not be found (found when?) naked.
Verse 4 For we (souls) that are in [this] tabernacle (the earthly body the soul would rather be absent from) do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Just when does that take place according to the same Paul.

1 Cor. 15:52,53,54 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal [must] put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

1 Thess 4:16,17 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

When did Paul believe he would ever be with the Lord?

Maybe you should re think 2 Cor 5

[John 8:32]

The issue here is the immortality of the soul. Do souls die or are they immortal? Souls die. The hope that Paul spoke of was the resurrection of the dead to immortality, else one could not believe this plain statement...

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Now, in the light of this clear scripture, who among us has an immortal soul?

[divaD]

It's not nearly as nonsensical as concluding that it's saying the body and soul will be annihilated. That would mean the verse is saying to not fear those who can annihilate the body but cannot annihilate the soul. The problem with that is when someone kills someone's body they are not annihilating the person's body. So, how can annihilation be what Jesus had in mind there?

So how do you think destroy should be understood in that passage? Do you think it means to torment forever? If so, using your own words, this would have to be your conclusion..."It's not nearly as nonsensical as concluding that it's saying the body and soul will be ETERNALLY TORMENTED. That would mean the verse is saying to not fear those who can ETERNALLY TORMENT the body but cannot ETERNALLY TORMENT the soul. The problem with that is when someone kills someone's body they are not ETERNALLY TORMENTING the person's body."

In case that's not your view, feel free to change ETERNAL TORMENT to what your view is. IMO, I gave the correct sense for destroy in that verse..it means to kill, So
whatever happens to a body once it's been killed, usually meaning that body is entirely unaware of it's surroundings at that point, the same concept has to apply to the soul once it is killed. What happens to the body eventually? It turns to dust. What usually happens to things in a fire eventually? They turn to ashes. Whether a soul can be turned into ashes, I guess only God knows. But at least it's staying consistent with what happens to a body after awhile. And besides, fire has been known to turn things into ashes eventually, as if those things had never existed, since the ashes in no way resembles what it was before it became ashes.

[Vanderhoven7]

The issue here is the immortality of the soul. Do souls die or are they immortal? Souls die. The hope that Paul spoke of was the resurrection of the dead to immortality, else one could not believe this plain statement...

1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Now, in the light of this clear scripture, who among us has an immortal soul?

Amen. Excellent scripture John. Innate immortality is not a biblical teaching. It is a pagan derivative. Not one verse in the Bible supports it, but many contradict it. This mortal must put on immortality; it is something we seek for... and are promised; it will be ours at the resurrection.