Christians; please tell me how you feel about the following quote?
I've always wondered about this. How can there be no more sorrow or sighing and no more tears, pain, etc., if the damned are forever and ever experiencing conscious torment? And how can something like this be part of the "all things" that are summed up in Christ?
And that all things are summed up/brought together in Christ. How can a hell full of billions upon billions of hopeless, tormented souls be in Christ?
As for the KJV, I have to say I prefer the Greek though I have to rely on reference materials to take advantage of it.
For probably the last year or a little less I've been convinced that annihilation was the truth, but for some reason it came into my head/heart to ask a couple of questions and I think perhaps I may have stumbled into another rabbit hole. I have vowed to always take the red pill, but I'm not sure what I'm going to see when it takes effect this time.
No, what I want is to make absolutely certain that I'm reading Jesus correctly and interpreting what He says correctly. Besides eternal conscious torment, there are two viable alternatives, neither of which do violence to scripture (and it would take too long to detail why): That the flames of hell destroy and that death is death. That is, that the wicked dead suffer the punishment appropriate and then are no more. Or, the alternative I'm now studying: That the wicked dead suffer in hell until they pay the uttermost farthing, as George MacDonald has put it, and then begin to be able to repent. If you study the OT, you s
Historically, it appears that any of these three viewpoints were considered acceptable in the early church, so I guess they weren't absolutely positive either. If following Jesus is about avoiding hell, then I suppose one might conclude: "I'll only suffer for a finite time and then I'll repent, so it doesn't matter." But Jesus is indescribable. There are not enough words. The reason for turning to Jesus is Jesus Himself, not the fear of hell.
My question wasn't at all about doubting or judging God. I should have made that clearer. I agree that mankind is depraved and fallen and unable to save himself. Otherwise, Jesus' death would be a meaningless act of violence, but He came to seek and save the lost. No, my question is more about translations and our doctrines and whether or not they agree with the bible -- really agree with the original language and original intent and most of all the voice of God's Spirit speaking to us in the written and living word.
We have invented so many of our own doctrines, and since most of us have been taught them from childhood, it's sometimes hard to discern what is the truth of God and what is time-honored (but mistaken) tradi
and through him to reconcile the all things to himself--having made peace through the blood of his cross--through him, whether the things upon the earth, whether the things in the heavens. (Colossians 1:20 YLT) That word "reconcile" means, I'm told, to bring together into one. Note that things under the earth aren't mentioned (as they are elsewhere), and some commentators feel this means that fallen angels and unrepentant men aren't included. I'm not sure that works for me. Does that mean that Christ WON'T be all in all? I wonder if they don't have to be either destroyed or reconciled.
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your picture of the lake of fire being the second death and the destruction of evil (after which it is no more). I haven't h