"Condemned them too extinction" -- ungodly - or too an eternal life of torment?
Does anyone think Sodom, a city, is now being tormented in Hell today? If it is not, then how is it an example of being tormented in Hell?
Will there be degrees of punishment in Hell? See (9) MORE TOLERABLE, the judgment of cities in chapter eight, part four.
THE NOTHING CAN BE DESTROYED ARGUMENT
In his reply to my article "From Where Came Hell" Csonka said, "They (bottles, gold, and sheep...spirits) would be in a state of detriment and not annihilation" (Truth Magazine, 1995, page 17). He makes broken bottles, and our spirits after death have the same "state." Will the bottles be "annihilation" after the earth is destroyed and return to the nothing God make all thing from, or will they still be in the same "state" as our spirit? Does he think earthly bottles will be in Heaven? All the elements (atoms) in a tree came from the soil, and were created from nothing when God made the earth; and when a tree is burnt, the elements go back to the earth. The elements in a tree existed before the tree did, and will exist after the tree unto the end of the earth (Peter 3:12). Does he think that a tree was a tree before the seed came up? Does he think that a body that has decayed in the ground and gone back to the elements that had been in the ground for thousands of years before the person was born is still a person? Is the ashes of those that were burned at the stake are still the persons; if the ashes are still the persons, how is it that many believe only a bodiless soul (that according to Robert Morey a soul is “thoughts only,” is immaterial and has no substance) that is in a person will be in Heaven? But worst of all, does he think the all wise and all knowing God could not have used symbols that taught what He wanted to teach, that when God compared the lost to a tree that is burnt up that God could not burnt up a person? He is saying matter cannot be destroyed, not even when it is burnt up, it just changes back to the base elements from which the bottle was made; therefore, a soul can never be destroyed. What base elements does he think a soul (an "immaterial, invisible part of man") is made of that it will go back to at the death of the person it had been in? When something burns up, are the ashes that remain conscious and in torment? When a bottle changes back to the base elements, it is no longer a bottle; what does he think a soul is if it has changed from a soul back to its base elements, and what does he think are the base elements of a soul that he believes has no substance? Is he saying only the materials of which souls are made are in existence? A bottle has substance, but according to today's theology a soul has no substance. He is making a comparison of something he says has no substance with the substance of a bottle that was destroyed, but is no longer a bottle. Is he saying only the base element of a soul that has no base element, and has no substance, is in Abraham's bosom? He has made death be nothing but "a loss of well being," or "a loss of all the quality of life." Therefore, life can be nothing but "well being." The elements of tree and the elements that a person are made of existed before the tree or the person, and they will exist after they return to the earth from which they came, but they were not a person before his or her birth, and are not a person after his or her death. The elements that make up my body existed from the time God made the earth out of nothing, but I did not exist before my birth. If a dead body is burned, the smoke and ashes remain, but are the ashes still the person? The base elements of all things were made out of nothing and will go back to nothing at the end of the world; therefore, his argument, that nothing can be destroyed is not true for all things will be destroyed. When anyone tries to prove an error, they have to fall back on human wisdom and misusing or changing God's word. With all love and respect, this is one of the most far out arguments I have ever heard. He must have needed something very badly with which to prove his teaching. The impact of the teachings of Christ in these parables is so strong that some would make the words of Christ be saying nothing just to get away from it. If a tree cannot be destroyed, then Christ the master teacher is saying nothing. Christ is made to be just a "vain babbler," speaking things that cannot be; for if they do not, then their Hell could not be.
The same science that tells us nothing can be destroyed also tells us that nothing can be created out of nothing. This science does not realize that the God that made all things out of nothing can send that which He made out of nothing back to nothing. Those who use the nothing can be destroyed argument to prove a person has a part that cannot be destroyed may give God the power to create out of nothing, but they denies Him the power to destroy what He has created out of nothing. If all the elements that were in a person's body existing after his death proves that person is still alive somewhere, it would also prove that person was alive somewhere before his birth for all the elements in the body also existed before the birth. The elements are not a person after death any more than they were a person before birth. But, why are they using elements of this earth to prove something about souls that they say are not made of elements of this earth? This is like a drowning man reaching for a straw. Adam was not created unto the sixth day, but the dust from which he was created existed before the sixth day, before Adam, but the dust was not Adam (Genesis 2:7). After he sinned he was told, “For you are dust and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19). The same dust that existed before Adam was not Adam, and after Adam the same dust existed, but it was not Adam.
Csonka said, "Five of these passages are parables that do not describe what will literally happen; but, explain in the closest terms the things that will take place in the spiritual parallel." Csonka, “Truth Magazine,” 1995, page 16.
Unless a tree is tormented, there is no close parallel to the teaching of eternal torment.
But- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Summary: When we burn up something, are the ashes in conscious torment? Skins, bottles that perish (Matthew 9:17), moths destroyed cloth (Luke 12:33), foods that perished (John 6:27) are not in conscious torment after they are destroyed or perished, yet traditionalists use these to prove conscious torment after death because these materials are not annihilated. By using the same logic, the bodies of beasts are not annihilated after their death for all the elements of their bodies still exist; therefore, they are now just as conscious as people are, for none of the elements of their bodies has not been destroyed, they still exist. When a persons house burns to ashes, that persons does not have a house, the house he or she did have does not exist anymore; to say nothing can be annihilated; therefore, the earthly body of a person cannot be annihilated is nothing more than a deceptive play on words.
We are told, "That which thinks and remembers cannot be matter; therefore, a person must have a soul, which is composed of some other substance." Animals can think and remember, some of them can think and remember very well; therefore, animals "must have a soul, which is composed of some other substance."
THE JUSTICE OF GOD
The argument of some is that God would not be a just God if He did not punish the sinner. They then jump from justice demands punishment to Hell being the only way God can punish the sinner; most of the time without any kind of an attempt to prove there is a Hell. They are so indoctrinated that they assume the only kind of punishment there could be is their Hell, and are blind to what God does say. The question is how do they know the punishment will be in Hell when there is not one word about it in the Bible? There is much on the punishment being death, but nothing on it being souls being tormented by God in Hell. Death is the worst kind of punishment, but some cannot see it as a punishment because they are so blinded by their Hell theology.
SUMMARY
It is almost beyond belief that many, if not all of the major translations of the Bible made by men who believed in eternal torment, that none of these words are ever translated torment. Not one time is it said that God or Satan will torment anyone forever; but it is said repeatedly, using many different words (death, die, perish, destroyed, and destruction) that God will destroy those who are not His children.
Neither the name, nor a place called “Hell” is not in the Bible in the Greek New Testament, or the Hebrew Old Testament. It was put into the Bible in the Dark Ages by mistranslating. It changes the God of love into an evil god of infinite horrors. It is a gospel and a god that is very different that the Gospel and the God of the Bible (Galatians 1:8-9).
Christ said, “But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men” (Matthew 15:9). Could a doctrine that changes what God said, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23) to, “The wages of sin is an endless life being endlessly tormented by God” be anything but vain worship?
CHAPTER EIGHT
First Resurrection And Second Death
An Immortal Soul or Resurrection of the Dead
The interpretation of figurative language, metaphors, and symbolic passages
Part 1: The rich man and Lazarus. The intermediate bosom
Part 2: Israel's destruction, her weeping, gnashing of teeth, outer darkness, Matthew 24 - Preterits Eschatology - Realized Eschatology - The A. D. 70 Doctrine - The day of the Lord - 2 Peter 3
Part 3: The symbolical pictures of Revelation versus a literal interpretation - Souls under the altar - The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever - The Lake of Fire
Part 4: Forever and ever of the King James Version - Eternal
Those who believe in the Pagan doctrine of an immortal soul from birth and Hell have no plain statements. That they must reinterpret figurative language, metaphors, and symbolic passages into literal statements shows the weakness of their belief that it is from man and not from God. Parables and figurative language are made to be superior over plain statements. The clear language must be changed to agree with what is thought to have been said in the symbolic language; therefore, many literal passages must be made figurative to keep them from being in conflict. Many of the metaphors about the destruction of Israel have been discussed in the first seven chapters. This chapter is a look at some of the symbolic passages that are often changed into literal statements.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PART ONE
The Interpretation Of Figurative Language
Metaphors And Symbolic Passages
THE INTERMEDIATE BOSOM: THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
Luke 16:19-31
Does hades have a good side and a bad side? This parable is one of the most used scriptures to prove both (1) that persons have something that has no substance in them and it goes to Heaven or Hell, (2) or when the person it is in dies that this something that is in the person leaves the person and goes into a holding place unto the resurrection. If this were a literal story and not a parable, as many believe it is, it would be both in conflict with and a contradiction of the belief that a soul leaves the person it was in and that soul at once to goes to Heaven or Hell at the death of the person; if that soul went to Abraham’s bosom it would be positive proof that soul does not instantly go to Heaven or Hell.
Many realizing that the Orthodox teaching that there is something in a person that goes to Heaven or Hell at death is not from the Bible, and “it” will not be in Heaven before and without a resurrection and judgment, knew they had to have an intermediate or third place that is not Heaven or Hell to put immortal souls (if there were immortal souls) from death unto the resurrection. Is the best they can do is to try to make a parable into a true story, making Abraham's bosom into a holding place unto the resurrection? In doing this, they must set aside the plain teaching on death and the resurrection as if they did not exist. Making this into a real story, and not a parable may be a life or death struggle with them, for the Bible gives them nowhere for a living soul to be living in before the resurrection, There is no other place, and they need to make this into a real place. If they do not, they have a living soul with nowhere for it to be living in before the resurrection and judgment. They cannot have it in Heaven or their Hell unto the resurrection, but they must have somewhere to keep it. They cannot even agree among themselves, for some say it is a parable, and some say, "No it is a true story." Many that think it is a parable will use it as if it were a true story; they say it teaches the same thing either way. "Notes On The Parables Of Our Lord" by R. C. Trench is ranked as one of the best on the parables. He not only says this is a parable, but on page 17 says parables are not to be made the first sources to teach a doctrine. To go from the clear to the obscure has been recognized as the law of Scriptural interpretation, but this has been forgotten by those looking for an argument to sustain a weak position, and often invent for themselves support in parables. On page 162 Trench says it is most important to keep in mind that this parable has as it's central thought the rebuke of unbelief. Nevertheless, this parable is used as the first and only source to teach a doctrine that is not found in any other part of the Bible.
Some that believe in Hell often point to Luke 16 to prove there is torment after death, but when pushed, most of them will admit hades is not Hell, but they need to prove there is torment in Hell; therefore, use the torment of the rich man in hades in this parable and hope in some way to transfer the torment in hades to torment in Hell. Even if this were a true story and not a parable, it may prove that there is torment before the resurrection, but it would prove nothing about what will be after the resurrection, or that there will even be a Hell after the resurrection; yet, Luke 16 is one of the most used passages to try to prove there is a Hell, and that there is torment in Hell even though there is nothing about Hell in the parable. They are desperately looking for proof of Hell, which they cannot find. It says nothing of Heaven. Hell, or a soul. The complete silence of the scriptures about the dead being anywhere before the resurrection other than the grave is a deathblow to the doctrine of an immortal soul; Those who make this parable into a literal story and are trying to prove the Abraham's bosom view, or to prove Hell, use it to put aside hundreds of plain passages of scripture.
PARABLES IN LUKE 15 AND 16
Five "a certain" in a row.
Christ used "a certain" 18 times, and all 18 are in parables (Matthew 18:23; 21:28; 31:23; 22:2; Mark 12:1; Luke 7:41; 10:30; 10:31; 10:33; 12:16; 13:6; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; 16:19: 16:20; 19:12; 20:9). No one questions that the other 16 times "a certain" is used as being in parables, only the two in this parable to make them fit with the literal view, but it is desperately needed for this not to be a parable for it to be proof of the doctrine of Hell, even if it makes the passage contradict what is believed about Hell.
The objection of some is that it is not called a parable. More than half, 15 of the 26 parables in Luke are not called a parable. The three parables before this one that are a part of the series of five parables all spoken to the Pharisee and Scribes in the same speech are not called parables, but no one questions them being parables. The objection of others is that parables do not use proper names. "And he took up his parable, and said, 'From Aram has Balak brought me, the king of Moab from the mountains of the East: come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel'" (Numbers 23:7). Not one but five proper names are used in one parable. "Satan" (Mark 4:14) and "the son of man" (Matthew 13:37) are used in parables, also Ezekiel 23:1-4.
This is the last in a series of five parables, all spoken to the Pharisee and Scribes, all in the same speech. All five have people, but no one takes the people in the first four to be actual people, but fictitious people used to teach the Pharisees to whom these five parables were spoken.
1. A man with a hundred sheep (Luke 15:3-7).
· “Both the Pharisees and scribes began to grumble…and he told them this parable” (Luke 15:2-3).
2. The woman with two coins (Luke 15:8-10).
3. Two sons and a father (Luke 15:11-32).
4. The cunning servant (Luke 16:1-17).
5. Rich man, Lazarus, Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:14-31).
· “Now the Pharisees…were listening to all these things…and He said to them” (Luke16:14-15).
Those who make this parable into a literal story do not accept the main part of it as being literal. They do not accept Abraham’s bosom as being a literal place, but as a symbolic place; his literal bosom had turned to dust many years before, and there would not be room for even one person in Abraham’s literal bosom; therefore, if part of it cannot be literal none of it can be literal, if it is a true story then all of it must be literal. It is a symbolic picture or a true story? It cannot be a mixture of the two; it cannot be part literal and part a true story. Does anyone believe Lazarus was literally carried to Abraham’s literal bosom by angels?
Many want to make this a true story and not a parable to use it to prove Hell, but the only part they want to be a true story is the one word “torment” even though it is clear that the “torment” in this parable is not in Hell; the rich man was not in Hell and Lazarus was not in Heaven.
IF THIS WERE A TRUE STORY AND NOT A PARABLE
If one attempts to explain all the elements as though they are literal, the difficulties of making this be a true story will be seen.
If this were a true story for those that believe the newer version of Hell, that no one will be in Hell before the judgment day, the rich man being in a conscious state before the resurrection, judgment, and second death would not prove there was an immortal soul that had been in the rich man when he was alive would not prove eternal torment or anything that is to be after the judgment day (nothing is said about a soul after that soul had left the dead rich man that it had been in when rich man was alive), it speaks about two men, the rich man and Lazarus, not about two souls that had been in the two man before their death, not about two souls that are now in Abraham’s bosom.
If this is a true story, it is in direct conflict with Christ and Paul. Christ said, "For you shall be recompensed in the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14:14); but if this is a true story, their recompense is in "Abraham's bosom" immediately after death before the resurrection. What will happen after death? Christ said, "For the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs (not in Abraham's bosom) shall hear his voice, and come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29). If hades is not the grave, no one will be in the tombs when Christ comes. Paul said, "There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord...shall give me at that day" (2 Timothy 4:8).
If this is a true story it would make Christ be against Christ in this teaching and His teaching in Matthew 12:15; Mark 3:24-25; Luke 14:17-18. The resurrection keeps getting in the way of the immortal soul doctrine, for it seems to be more than just a little difficult to have a resurrection of something that is alive and not dead.
o If all go to Heaven or Hell instantly after death, no one will be in the tombs when Christ comes.
o If all go to Abraham’s bosom, or the bad side across the gulf, no one will be in the tombs when Christ comes.
If this is a true story it makes the judgment a mockery and an empty show. All would be judged instantly after death. The souls that were in the wicked would now be being punished, and the souls that were in the saved would now be being rewarded before the Judgment Day; therefore, both punishment and reward would begin