Eriol said:
Do you have any evidence that the proper reading is the one you defend here? Do you have any evidence to the effect that the thief did not die in that night? (As far as I know one does not survive crucifixion for a long time). No evidence, just interpretation. Not that I disagree with your interpretation, but it is just as valid as the more obvious one, that the thief will die in that night, and that he'll meet Jesus that night in paradise.
No, there is no proof that the thief didn't die that night. However, that doesn't change the fact that Christ didn't go to heaven at his death. He went down into Sheol and at the resurrection he plainly states to Mary not to touch Him for he had 'not ascended to the Father'. Then when He greets Thomas He says to touch Him. Somehow He got to heaven to present Himself to the Father after the resurrection. You believe (AGAIN) that your intepretation is true based on the assumption that man has an immortal soul. Nowhere can you prove this, therefore you cannot read that into the text, especially when Christ emphasised himself that:
1) He would rise after three days,
2) Acts 2 states he is in Sheol and along with 1 Corinthians 15
places Christ's life contingent on God resurrecting Him and our life contigent on that resurrection.
3) Christ was in the grave and was resurrected with a new BODY. You cannot prove any sort of body/soul reunification.
And BTW, it is far from interpretation to say that the Greek didn't have any punctuation. That is a fact. (Or were you being cheeky?)
Eriol said:
This is not a matter that can be proven right or wrong through Scriptures -- that would be too easy

. And we're talking about the most read book in History. If there were obvious mistakes of interpretation in the traditional reading, it wouldn't be the traditional reading.
When you take one bible text like you are doing and trying to wrap a theology around it, yes it could be all up to interpretation. When you step back and take all the theological evidence into consideration and see the picture of salvation history unfolding, we see a whole different story. Here is where traditionalist view falls apart and conditional/annihilation view stands solid. I can take Revelation 20 and twist it anyway I want. When I ignore numerous bible texts that say otherwise and ignore the metaphorical and allegorical language in those few texts, it is a recipe for theological disaster and that has been the state of the 'hell' doctrine for centuries.
Eriol said:
I think that your greatest problem with the traditional Hell is not scriptural, it is ethical. You don't like that God. I can't really blame you, but I must point out that immortality and eternity and free will and sin are all very delicately linked when we discuss Hell, and that what seems to you unfair may be quite fair. You don't KNOW eternity, and you don't KNOW that annihilation is to be preferred to eternal punishment. God does know all of that. He'll pick the best option.
Oh no, there is more than enough evidence in scripture to contradict 'eternal torment'. I find that the traditionalists are on seriously thin ice in intepretation, support and logic. Contradictions within the traditionalist camp abound (difference between Hades, Gehenna, Tartaros/when the wicked receive the punishment/whether it is a 'soul' or body that burns') because there is so much assumption based on assumption that is almost comical.
However, you are right. There is a moralist argument. God has created us in His image (of course, you thinking man evolved from pond slime wouldn't see this 'image' the same way

) and with a conscience that can distinguish between right and wrong. Our minds revolt at such a concept and we wouldn't even consider doing that to someone else because it would be called sin in God's eyes. Yet God can do it and it is not sin? It is perfectly alright? God's mercy knows no bounds and yet He, unlike ourselves (much lower beings) wouldn't even think to end the suffering of His children (that he loves even more than we do)? Arguments like the one you have put forth are kindling for the fires atheists and philosophers they like to set under the character of God. If I believed in such a view, I could not support God's character (man's free will or not), nor would I have decent ground to do so, to those people.
Eriol said:
I see no difference between your point (1) and the traditional doctrine. I could just as well say that the wicked dies and the very next thing will be to raised by Christ to NOT see his face, and to be punished.
Point 2 actually gives me ammo. Our flesh can't see God, yet Paul longs to see Him. It seems Paul believes that he can see God when he is "outside" this flesh -- i.e., dead.
No, because you can only assume that being 'absent from the body' means an immortal spirit to rise to heaven, of which there is no proof in this text or elsewhere. However, Paul makes it plain elsewhere that it is in with the immortal body we receive at the resurrection when we will see God. Paul is saying nothing about an immortal essence. He is basically stating that in this EARTHLY body we cannot see the face of God. He would rather it be that he can see God in his immortal flesh. There is another text that states that Paul wishes to be clothed in immortality and not be left 'naked' (i.e dead in the grave). It is very similar to this text but states the hope of the resurrected body. I can't remember which one it is and I don't have my Bible yet. And in the text in Timothy I stated earlier, Paul fully expects to get his reward at the day of resurrection. (You know, you have ignored many of my Bible texts...I forgive you)
Eriol said:
Interpretation! Unlike the other instances in which I consider your interpretation as good as the traditional (since it hangs on matters such as punctuation, that is non-existent in the original documents), here I would disagree, based on the word "own". "Own place". Whose place? Not that of new apostle, because this was spoken before the new apostle was chosen, and therefore it was not yet his "own" place. It is also not "Judas' own" place, since Judas is dead and the place does not belong to him anyway.
I think the word "own" makes your interpretation a stretch.
Not even close! To take the 'he' in these verses and make them apply to both the successor to Judas and Judas himself is the linguistic stretch. To do so is to totally incorporate a thought that linguistically doesn't belong. The phrase is 'that he MIGHT find his own place', not that he is in his own place already. As I said before, this 'place' is where this successor belongs in his role as a disciple. It is a much bigger stretch to make the use of 'he' as Judas and 'find his place' meaning go to his tormenting destiny.
Outside of the scriptures, I have never seen any traditionalist argument for the immortality of the soul or torment at death to use this verse. Doesn't that tell you that it is because I'm right?
Eriol said:
What is better, to be born and then to burn into annihilation, or not to be born at all? I gotta tell you, I prefer to be born. I like to think that if I am burned into annihilation, at least I'll have loved and laughed and lived.
But I also must admit that if the choice is not to be born or eternal punishment, then I prefer not to be born. The point is that annihilation and "non-birth" are equivalent. If Judas' ultimate destiny is non-existence, then it is not "worse" for him to be born, and I could make a case to the effect that it was better. After all, as you just said, he DID see Jesus face to face. Would it be better for him to not be born? I doubt it. I much prefer to be born, see Jesus, and then become annihilated than to not be born at all.
Judas was the one who directly betrayed Jesus. He was one of Christ's personally chosen disciples and I really don't think you can compare the disciples' experience with anyone else in Palestine.
I still believe this is talking about the circumstances of Judas' situation and not about the nature of his reward. The biggest issue is what the wicked will
realize not what they will experience (and the reason why Judas more than anyone will realize the bitterness of it all). They will see their chance for eternal happiness gone. They will see where they had the chance to repent and where their doom lies. Not so much in the punishment but what they are going to miss. To me this is the greatest tragedy of 'wishing they had never been born' because they missed out on the true life not because of the nature of their punishment, whether it be eternal torment or annihilation.