Forgiveness is great; but dont extend to everything.

[Michael Collum]

Thank you John i appreciate this conversation we've been having . it's been respectful . which is rare online . especially relating to such a hard topic .

Thanks again Michael for your answers. I appreciate them.

Now moving on,

I agree, it is for Church people.

So tares could be the people who committed unforgivable sins?

No .. i don't think that so much, but what i do think is tares are the people who have never been forgiven of their sins . the wheat and the tares is a perpetual metaphor of church life .

So it's possible it could lead to damnation? And nothing can be good about damnation right?

Not necessarily . i need to see somewhere in scripture a definition of what this blaspheming means, i think God leaves some things ambiguous for a reason . For example, revelation reveals a whole bunch of celestial creatures .. that are not angels . so the old distinction of angel or demon may be an incorrect premise in the same way .. there may not be a category A and Category B only in these matters .. i recall a certain letter in revelation implying some christians (if they don't overcome) will be hurt by the second death . and Paul said something of a similar tenor regarding some being saved but only as through fire but their works will be burned . I'm not sure how it works if the Holy Spirit doesn't forgive you .. but i really wouldn't want to find out .

Ephesians 4:30-32

30And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

James 2:10-13

10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!

But somehow, i think doing these things because you're afraid you'll be punished or covetous for some kind of reward for it is missing the point .

1 John 4:18

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

Matthew 20:8-16

8So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard saith unto his steward, Call the labourers, and give them their hire, beginning from the last unto the first.
9And when they came that were hired about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny.
10But when the first came, they supposed that they should have received more; and they likewise received every man a penny.
11And when they had received it, they murmured against the goodman of the house,
12Saying, These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.
13But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny?
14Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
15Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

The phrase " it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come." Is that not conclusive enough?

the word Aion is debated among scholars quite hotly, in their stead i'd ask .. what about the Aion after that?

Amen and amen. I agree. We are indeed making progress.

There are even unforgivable sins not included in your list. Now if there are forgivable sins and unforgivable sins, is it not possible that the sin not unto death are for forgivable sins and the sins unto death are the unforgivable sins?

Yes .. it is a very broad topic . i guess one could write a book on it related to the subtle nuances of how it is possible to use the scripture to chip away at the truth contained in Romans 8:35-40 . but back to the questions .

Hmm . the unforgivable sins seem to have one characteristic in common . like with the fallen angels . it involves breaking trust . or as Paul says to the galatians "falling from grace" . in the instance of the mark of the beast .. that appears to have a more permanent effect .

but there is also the matter of what Paul said regarding sin .. "if i do what i do not want to do, then it is no longer i that sin .. but the sin within me that is doing the sin" so then God would know .. if it is sin talking or the person actually talking . all of these sins seem to have an aspect of intent involved . like the mark .

No worries

You mean the death you are referring to is physical death? I'm sorry, I don't follow.

yeah the sin unto death . is like those who take communion unworthily and get sick and then die . it doesn't mean they're damned . it just means they should be more careful .

(EDIT)So a passage came back to remembrance , so i'll add this also .
1 Corinthians 11:28-30

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

I looked up the word for damnation and it appears to be Krima, "judgment with a punishment" it appears in this case the punishment is sickness and death . and if they are just taking it but not in a trust relationship with Jesus Christ .. well it's not the communion that kills their soul .. it was already dead in its sin .

Lets' discuss that.

When a Christian sins before it leads to death, those sins can be prayed for, correct?
Surely both of us would agree that these sins are forgivable?

just noting i sense a sharp contrast in premise here . but i'll do my best to answer .

When a Christian sins before it leads to death .. all sin leads to death .. the law of sin and death is what we were freed from . but a man reaps what he sows God will not be mocked . and of course you'd pray for them .

yepp God forgives sin . that's what Jesus died on the cross to do . to err is human to forgive divine .

But when a Christian sins and that these sins lead to death, is it not safe to conclude that these are now the sins that what John is referring to, the sins unto death?

not really, this appears to be saying .. we prayed for them and they died .. so it must've been their sin why the prayers didn't work . Jesus addressed this once in the gospels . can't quite agree there .

And if these sins give birth to death, is it not possible that these are the unforgivable sins being mentioned by numerous verses of the bible?

James already clarified that for us. There are sins but after a some time, if not repented brings forth death.

I disagree . b/c the scripture says that Death characteristically frees from sin . that is why death is . because the or a sin unto death is not specified as an unforgivable sin . i need to stick with the scripture here . and see it as a sin that has grown out of control . because if i go into experience . we'll all get lost .

I agree what King Mannashe did are forgivable sins. But if he didn't repent, and his sins gave birth to death, would it not constitute an unforgivable sin?

This was under the old covenant . so it isn't really applicable unless one has "fallen from grace" by being directed by the law instead of the Spirit of God . In the OT the idea of an unforgivable sin was different . i'd say examples like King Saul and Esau are better examples . but even in their cases i really don't know . the Old Testament is a hard period to judge . because they did not have the Holy Spirit indwelling . (well except for ezekiel ) so i just leave it up to Him .

A thought that lighted on me as i was responding .

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.

Sin that has grown to the point of giving birth to death . kills the body . there is nothing written in the scripture that i have encountered thus far to illustrate that it kills the soul .

thank again John, hope my response helped in answering some of your questions .

-Michael

 

[John_Jervis]

Hi Michael,

Just saw your reply, will reply back after my work today

It's morning here, so good morning to anyone in my timezone! To everyone else, good day, good afternoon and good night (I think Jim Carrey has a line like that in one of his movies)!

 

[Michael Collum]

Good morning John, looking forward to your response .

 

[John_Jervis]

Thank you John i appreciate this conversation we've been having . it's been respectful . which is rare online . especially relating to such a hard topic .

Yes, I agree. That what makes CFS very special!

No .. i don't think that so much, but what i do think is tares are the people who have never been forgiven of their sins . the wheat and the tares is a perpetual metaphor of church life .

When you say that the tares were the people who have never been forgiven of their sins... so technically, they have committed unforgivable sins?

Not necessarily . i need to see somewhere in scripture a definition of what this blaspheming means, i think God leaves some things ambiguous for a reason .

Not necessary but possible, right? Or are you saying there is no possibility?

I am certain Michael that I will not be able to convert you. That's why I'm only talking about possibilities here. I'm not going to force you to accept what I believe. Merely, just to open your mind to certain areas that is not clear to you.

You admit there is ambuiguity. If you cannot be certain that A is B therefore, you cannot also be certain that A is not B.

So, I'll repeat the question, is there no possibity that commiting the unforgivable sin can lead to damnation?

But somehow, i think doing these things because you're afraid you'll be punished or covetous for some kind of reward for it is missing the point .

But the Bible does teach us that there are forgivable sins and unforgivable sins. Surely it is important to study them, is it not?

the word Aion is debated among scholars quite hotly, in their stead i'd ask .. what about the Aion after that?

All we need is to consider the context. What is the context? That the unforgivable sin leads to something horrible. Could there be something awful in heaven?

Yes .. it is a very broad topic . i guess one could write a book on it related to the subtle nuances of how it is possible to use the scripture to chip away at the truth contained in Romans 8:35-40 . but back to the questions .

Hmm . the unforgivable sins seem to have one characteristic in common . like with the fallen angels . it involves breaking trust . or as Paul says to the galatians "falling from grace" . in the instance of the mark of the beast .. that appears to have a more permanent effect .

but there is also the matter of what Paul said regarding sin .. "if i do what i do not want to do, then it is no longer i that sin .. but the sin within me that is doing the sin" so then God would know .. if it is sin talking or the person actually talking . all of these sins seem to have an aspect of intent involved . like the mark .

And yet you avoid the question Michael.

I was hoping you will give me something definite to work on, but alas, haha, you're smart I don't blame you. My only wish is that in the future, you'd be a little more open... remember you said you won't agree to disagree... however I'm more optimistic now than before when I was reading your earlier posts... after reading your admission of certain ambiguties... if you can't be sure one thing, at least you'll be agreeable to people who are certain of it... to agree to disagree

yeah the sin unto death . is like those who take communion unworthily and get sick and then die . it doesn't mean they're damned . it just means they should be more careful .

This would cause a lot of complications and grave implications in the Bible if we are to conclude that the death being mentioned by John and James are physical death.

Billions and billions of people experienced death. Have they all made the sin unto death?

yepp God forgives sin .

How about the unforgivable sin. Will God forgive it?

not really, this appears to be saying .. we prayed for them and they died .. so it must've been their sin why the prayers didn't work . Jesus addressed this once in the gospels . can't quite agree there .

I'm not asking you to agree, I'm just asking you of the possibility. Because, it's quite clear that you are not that sure.

I apologise if you think I'm a little hard on you. I understand where you are coming from. But we are just talking about concepts here... ideas that are logical, sound and above all, biblical...

What concepts am I talking about? The concept of forgivable sins and unforgivable sins are there and you agree. Why is it not possible that the sins unto death are the unforgivable sins?

I disagree . b/c the scripture says that Death characteristically frees from sin . that is why death is . because the or a sin unto death is not specified as an unforgivable sin . i need to stick with the scripture here . and see it as a sin that has grown out of control . because if i go into experience . we'll all get lost .

The problem lies from the "death" we are talking about. We have different viewpoints about it. Let's clear that up first.

If it is the physical death that is being talked about by James and John, that would mean the majority (the number would be astronomical) of people who have committed the sin unto death - that we should not have prayed for them when they were living?

If it is the physical death, then why would John say that we should pray for those people who are commiting sins NOT unto death? Why bother? What's the point? Because eventually they will all (that's a lot of people) die. This will not make any sense.

This was under the old covenant . so it isn't really applicable unless one has "fallen from grace" by being directed by the law instead of the Spirit of God . In the OT the idea of an unforgivable sin was different . i'd say examples like King Saul and Esau are better examples . but even in their cases i really don't know .

but are you open now to certain possibilities since you dont' know?

there is nothing written in the scripture that i have encountered thus far to illustrate that it kills the soul .

Hell is considered the second death. And if souls are there, can we not say, in a manner of speaking, that these souls were killed?

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

thank again John, hope my response helped in answering some of your questions .

You're welcome and thank you too. I apologise that sometimes I can be blunt (I blame my Filipino heritage, ehehe ) but God is my witness, I have no ill feelings toward you, all of it are directed to the arguments presented here, not the person.

God bless you Michael.

 

[Michael Collum]

Yes, I agree. That what makes CFS very special!

When you say that the tares were the people who have never been forgiven of their sins... so technically, they have committed unforgivable sins?

nope they just need to be born again .

Not necessary but possible, right? Or are you saying there is no possibility?

I am certain Michael that I will not be able to convert you. That's why I'm only talking about possibilities here. I'm not going to force you to accept what I believe. Merely, just to open your mind to certain areas that is not clear to you.

You admit there is ambuiguity. If you cannot be certain that A is B therefore, you cannot also be certain that A is not B.

So, I'll repeat the question, is there no possibity that commiting the unforgivable sin can lead to damnation?

if the bible is ambiguous on a subject i reserve judgment . especially on the topic of sin because of what is written about God's mercy . if a sin is not specified as unforgivable the cross implies forgiveness is sure so long as we seek it . i understand where you get your hypothesis in the bible . but due to the warfare i have to face every day . i cannot afford that kind of thought in my head . it's all got to be Christ centred . the enemies i fight can stop my breathing and other stuff like that . so some things that are okay for you to consider . i cannot . but that's just me . just telling you so you understand .

But the Bible does teach us that there are forgivable sins and unforgivable sins. Surely it is important to study them, is it not?

Ah yes . but such studies tend to make newbies in the faith quake in fear . and since we are not called to a spirit of fear again into slavery but of love and of sonship . so really the whole question i've been thinking on . it is possibly important . but is it edifying ? is the question that comes to mind . though i've enjoyed being able to work the brain again .

All we need is to consider the context. What is the context? That the unforgivable sin leads to something horrible. Could there be something awful in heaven?

well i think the whole point of that discourse is don't diss what's God's doing especially if you don't understand it or cannot control it .

And yet you avoid the question Michael.

I was hoping you will give me something definite to work on, but alas, haha, you're smart I don't blame you. My only wish is that in the future, you'd be a little more open... remember you said you won't agree to disagree... however I'm more optimistic now than before when I was reading your earlier posts... after reading your admission of certain ambiguties... if you can't be sure one thing, at least you'll be agreeable to people who are certain of it... to agree to disagree

I erased that post . though the thing i wouldn't agree to disagree was God's ability to save those He hand picked out of the fire .. because no one can pluck them out of the Father's hand . as the scripture says . i was perceiving your theory being too works oriented to fit into the gospel thesis . but moving on .

But notwithstanding . if i am uncertain of something . there is usually a good reason . if a person's certainty does not answer the questions i am living in regarding that .. then it is another opinion . if it's point seems to be contradicting what Paul said about Christ and salvation .. then hey why should i be agreeable? Paul wasn't . but that post was written in a transition time and after looking at it .. i couldn't really place it in the context of anything so i just replaced it with a hearty "/" apologies for being so argumentative .

but in the future .. perhaps i will just "let" people preaching another gospel according to the context of that letter .. just anathema maranatha . after all, orders are orders *shrugs*

This would cause a lot of complications and grave implications in the Bible if we are to conclude that the death being mentioned by John and James are physical death.

Billions and billions of people experienced death. Have they all made the sin unto death?

It isn't a grave implication . because the sin unto death is not an unforgivable sin . but dying in your sins .. hmm there seems to be a big theme of after death there is no hope for you . but dying in your sins . is different than telling God to His face you're you're the devil .

How about the unforgivable sin. Will God forgive it?

the gospel says Father forgives if we forgive

Jesus forgives no matter what

Holy Spirit doesn't forgive when that happens .

(i love using this to illustrate the trinity subtly when JWs come to the door har har har)

but since it is ambiguous as to whether the Pharisees who were warned of this actually committed this sin (since they stopped saying that after being warned in public) so like with salvation .. it isn't really our place to judge . which is really a response to my pondering? what is the point of asking this question? is it just to provide another way of judging people?

I'm not asking you to agree, I'm just asking you of the possibility. Because, it's quite clear that you are not that sure.

i don't need to consider the possibility . because unless it is specified as an unforgivable sin . then it is forgivable because God is faithful to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all righteousness when we confess them to Him . and the Old Testament was a different dynamic .

I apologise if you think I'm a little hard on you. I understand where you are coming from. But we are just talking about concepts here... ideas that are logical, sound and above all, biblical... What concepts am I talking about? The concept of forgivable sins and unforgivable sins are there and you agree.

no worries . i like that you're willing to discuss things .

Why is it not possible that the sins unto death are the unforgivable sins?

Because they are not specified so . and inventing sins that Jesus' blood cannot forgive .. seems to be limiting His mercy and faithfulness . and bordering on nullifying the power of the cross .

Why not? short answer: because of who God is revealed in Jesus Christ .

The problem lies from the "death" we are talking about. We have different viewpoints about it. Let's clear that up first.

If it is the physical death that is being talked about by James and John, that would mean the majority (the number would be astronomical) of people who have committed the sin unto death - that we should not have prayed for them when they were living?

If it is the physical death, then why would John say that we should pray for those people who are committing sins NOT unto death? Why bother? What's the point? Because eventually they will all (that's a lot of people) die. This will not make any sense.

Well .. i think the tenor is more like .. you can .. but if you don't i wouldn't blame you .

the spiritual oppression in such cases is just too much for some to bear .

Background: when i read sin in the bible i read it as an infection that causes creation to malfunction, when i read death coming from sin, it is when the destroyer that sin is has completely taken over . at that point everything works against you . it is brutal . but there still is hope . there are many ways to die . but that is definitely a way i do not want to die .

but are you open now to certain possibilities since you dont' know?

i'm always open to possibilities . admitting i don't know how to judge the quick and the dead is not a flaw inherent in my argument . that's God's job . not so much my responsibility which is why i said . i don't know .

Hell is considered the second death. And if souls are there, can we not say, in a manner of speaking, that these souls were killed?

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

You mean Gehenna right? because Death and the Pit are tossed into the lake of fire . so it's good to keep the places separate .
"hell" is translated glazing over subtle nuances of the three words .

But yes Gehenna, if it is the lake of fire . is the second death . souls would not be there yet .

the second coming or judgment day have not come yet .

your reasoning appears to be that "they were killed therefore they are there" this does not follow as those who were killed because of Jesus reigned for a thousand years with Him before that . and those in the book of life might have been killed also .

You're welcome and thank you too. I apologise that sometimes I can be blunt (I blame my Filipino heritage, ehehe ) but God is my witness, I have no ill feelings toward you, all of it are directed to the arguments presented here, not the person.

God bless you Michael.

Ditto (except me being a Canadian ), and Love bless you too John .

 

[John_Jervis]

Thanks again for your reply Michael.

I'll reply after my work today

 

[John_Jervis]

nope they just need to be born again .

But you said the tares "are the people who have never been forgiven of their sins". And according to the Bible:

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them:

if the bible is ambiguous on a subject i reserve judgment .

But isn't taking away the possibility, judgment?

but due to the warfare i have to face every day . i cannot afford that kind of thought in my head .

OK then.

it's all got to be Christ centred .

That's what I think I'm trying to do here. It was Christ who mentioned about an unforgivable sin.

the enemies i fight can stop my breathing and other stuff like that . so some things that are okay for you to consider . i cannot . but that's just me . just telling you so you understand .

That's my point. That's you and I accept that. What bothered me is when you said that you won't agree to disagree. It's one thing to oppose an unbiblical doctrine, but there must be acceptance at some point:

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
Rev 22:11

Ah yes . but such studies tend to make newbies in the faith quake in fear .

That is not my intention. The Bible says:

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thes 5:21

I'm merely following Biblical protocol.

and since we are not called to a spirit of fear again into slavery but of love and of sonship . so really the whole question i've been thinking on . it is possibly important . but is it edifying ?

All scripture is edifying:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
1 Tim 3:15

though i've enjoyed being able to work the brain again .

Same here.

well i think the whole point of that discourse is don't diss what's God's doing especially if you don't understand it or cannot control it .

The First Century Christians didn't have that kind of problem:

I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge
1 Cor 1:4-5

In fact no mystery was left undiscussed, even the mystery that was hidden since the world began:

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith

The greatest mysteries of God were revealed to Christians. Would you think God would let them be ignorant of the simplest concepts of sin? Do you think the audience of John were ignorant of the concepts of the sin unto death and the sin that is not unto death?

I erased that post .

I apologise but it was necessary. People wouldn't know where I'm coming from if I didn't point that out.

though the thing i wouldn't agree to disagree was God's ability to save those He hand picked out of the fire .. because no one can pluck them out of the Father's hand . as the scripture says . i was perceiving your theory being too works oriented to fit into the gospel thesis . but moving on .

Ah yes, it's an entirely different topic altogether. Let me just share something very quick. No one can pluck a Christian from the Father's hand. Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. All of these are outside forces, extrinsic in nature. But if you yourself turn away from God, if you remove yourself from the hand of God, well, the Bible says:

and who then turn away from God. It is impossible to bring such people back to repentance; by rejecting the Son of God, they themselves are nailing him to the cross once again and holding him up to public shame.
Heb 6:6

But notwithstanding . if i am uncertain of something . there is usually a good reason .

I don't doubt that you believe that.

if a person's certainty does not answer the questions i am living in regarding that .. then it is another opinion . if it's point seems to be contradicting what Paul said about Christ and salvation .. then hey why should i be agreeable? Paul wasn't .

First, the concept of the unforgivable sin came from Christ and Paul taught about it too.

Second, the point is not about agreeing with the beliefs of the other person but being agreeable with the person. That's the concept of agreeing to disgaree. It's not agreeing to agree.

The Bible allows this:

And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some
1 Cor 9:20-22

And by the way, that was Paul.

but that post was written in a transition time and after looking at it .. i couldn't really place it in the context of anything so i just replaced it with a hearty "/" apologies for being so argumentative .

It's fine. I'm merely proving a point.

It isn't a grave implication . because the sin unto death is not an unforgivable sin .

I apologise but according to your previous posts, you are not sure of this. What changed?

but dying in your sins .. hmm there seems to be a big theme of after death there is no hope for you . but dying in
your sins . is different than telling God to His face you're you're the devil .

The terminology given by many translators was a "sin that leads to death"
If we would apply the 2nd death there, sin that leads to the lake of fire.

the gospel says Father forgives if we forgive

Jesus forgives no matter what

Jesus said

Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Will Jesus forgive them? Isn't it possible, Christ also has conditions?

Holy Spirit doesn't forgive when that happens .

Doesn't the Holy Spirit follows what God the Father wants?

but since it is ambiguous as to whether the Pharisees who were warned of this actually committed this sin (since they stopped saying that after being warned in public) so like with salvation .. it isn't really our place to judge . which is really a response to my pondering? what is the point of asking this question? is it just to provide another way of judging people?

No, no, no. There is no such thing. What we are talking about is part of scripture. Are you saying we cherry pick some verses and disregard the rest?

i don't need to consider the possibility . because unless it is specified as an unforgivable sin . then it is forgivable because God is faithful to forgive our sins and cleanse us from all righteousness when we confess them to Him .

Isn't this like being double standard? It was not specified that the sins that leads to death are the unforgivable sin but it can be the forgivable sin?

Because they are not specified so . and inventing sins that Jesus' blood cannot forgive .. seems to be limiting His mercy and faithfulness . and bordering on nullifying the power of the cross .

Inventing? Wasn't it Christ who taught the concept of the unforgivable sin?

Special note to Michael:
Michael, don't go that path, we don't want the Moderators to remind us of something we already know. For now, I'll let that pass

Why not? short answer: because of who God is revealed in Jesus Christ .

The Holy Spirit was revealed descending towards Christ, but hey, they all follow God the Father.

i'm always open to possibilities . admitting i don't know how to judge the quick and the dead is not a flaw inherent in my argument . that's God's job .

Nobody is taking away God's job.

We are merely discussing what he wanted to be written in the Bible.

You mean Gehenna right?

Exactly

your reasoning appears to be that "they were killed therefore they are there" this does not follow as those who were killed because of Jesus reigned for a thousand years with Him before that . and those in the book of life might have been killed also .

Clearly, there is some misunderstanding here. That's the reason why I want to clarify our definitions of death here... it was lost somewhere...

Let me repeat what I said and try to elaborate:

Hell is considered the second death. And if souls are there, can we not say, in a manner of speaking, that these souls were killed?

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

You were looking for souls being killed right?

If one was killed, I can say, as a figure of speech, "one was given to death"

Here's my reasoning:

If souls were given to Gehenna, and Gehenna is death, can one not say, after a fashion, these souls were killed? Do you follow? The bible is full of figure of speeches. "Killing the soul" is one of them.

 

[Michael Collum]

John, i'm gonna sit on this for a while .

you see, what is happening . you are interpreting according to your premise . which is fine . but when reading my responses .. you are also reading with an expectation that i was responding according to your premise . which kinda misconstrues some of the things i am saying . because my premise for understanding is biblical yet is different from yours . and at this juncture in the conversation continuing does not appear to be edifying . but if in the future .. i can find a way to respond which would continue in the premise which i have learned from God to understand . (and i would think that i too have the Holy Spirit) . and comment or compliment yours . then i will respond . but at the moment it appears you're trying to make me respond according to a premise that i see as increasingly untrue . and have expressed why . and since this conversation is happening in a place with rules uncommon in face to face conversations . i'll leave it there .

Thank you John .

 

[John_Jervis]

John, i'm gonna sit on this for a while .

you see, what is happening . you are interpreting according to your premise . which is fine . but when reading my responses .. you are also reading with an expectation that i was responding according to your premise . which kinda misconstrues some of the things i am saying . because my premise for understanding is biblical yet is different from yours . and at this juncture in the conversation continuing does not appear to be edifying . but if in the future .. i can find a way to respond which would continue in the premise which i have learned from God to understand . (and i would think that i too have the Holy Spirit) . and comment or compliment yours . then i will respond . but at the moment it appears you're trying to make me respond according to a premise that i see as increasingly untrue . and have expressed why . and since this conversation is happening in a place with rules uncommon in face to face conversations . i'll leave it there .

Thank you John .

No worries Michael.