Against Annihilationism: the Hebrew Bible & Second Temple Jewish Literature - Thomas Farrar
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- Patreon: / intellectualcatholicism
Podcast: podcasts.apple...
Facebook: / intellectualcatholicism
Suan Sonna is a Baptist convert to Catholicism who is dedicated to curating the best Catholic intellectual content on philosophy, politics, and theology. He is also passionate about engaging people outside of the Catholic tradition on issues relevant to the Church.
Im a prot and believe in ECT
This is one of the best engagements with annihilationism from a ECT perspective, thanks
Very interesting topic. Looking forward to the presentation. Thanks for setting this up and letting us view it Suan.
Chris Date's senses are tingling 😂
I think a video specifically explaining the meaning and nuance of “historical grammatical method” of interpreting the Bible, with examples, would benefit your audience.
Love the I Enoch and IV Ezra talk.
Hi there. My question is not related to this topic, but I'd like to know what are the earliest sources we have that link Isaiah 22:22 with Matthew 16:18-19. Can we say it was on some of the Church Fathers? Did John Chrysostom wrote about it? Thank you.
I believe Suan would be able to answer if you mail him this question.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription I agree, although I don't know his email. Do you know?
@@rodrigofernandes5242 it's on his "Community" tab, check the handful of most recent posts it should be at the bottom of one of them
Apologetic crib sheet for Hell cites five passages for the doctrine: Is 33:11, 14 (everlasting flames); Mt 25:41 (eternal fire); Mt 25:46 (eternal punishment); Lk 3:16-17 (unquenchable fire); 2 Thess1:6-9 (penalty of eternal ruin)
at 30:00 I'm not sure if I agree. It's the natural state of the soul to exist from conception forever, it would need a supernatural intervention to destroy it. Saying that "God could have made us another way" is true but it doesn't deny that the natural destiny of the soul is everlasting existence. God could have made us have the body of a worms, but that doesn't mean that it's an act of supernatural intervention every time a human develops limbs, it's embedded into our nature.
At around 1:31:30 1 Enoch 102 is being discussed. It is suggested that bodies of the unrighteous are depicted as perishing while their souls descend with pain into Sheol. But even if this is correct, then "perish" (apollumi in Greek) does entail the loss of conscious existence since the bodies, which are what perishes, no longer have conscious existence. BUT, in the New Testament, Jesus teaches that God will destroy (apollumi in Greek) BOTH body and soul in hell (Gehenna) (Matthew 10:28). This would seem to support annihilationism rather than refute it.
@kevcooper3037 , I'm not sure that Luke 12:4 implies conscious torment at all, but it certainly does not imply ETERNAL conscious torment.
It's very telling that he has to deny the historical grammatical method of interpreting the bible to deny anihilationism. Every Old Testament quotation in the New Testament is properly used through a grammatical historical lense.
That is not true. Did you not hear or do you disagree with the examples that he cited, such as “out of Egypt I called my son”? The grammatical-historical meaning is unquestionably referring to the nation of Israel. The New Testament attributes it to Yeshua.
@@AlixPrappaseither interpretation is true depending on context and perspective.
Its also very telling that you have to rip out books from the Bible and deny contemporary jewish writtings to believe in annihilationism.
@@ninjason57Yes, that’s true...I don’t understand, why are you saying that? Is that comment meant to verify the claim that every Old Testament quote in the New Testament is done with the proper grammaticohistorical sense as the original post suggests?
@@AlixPrappas No, I'm just saying that the grammatical historical interpretation isn't always incorrect but more likely to be true than an allegorical interpretation that isn't explicitly used in the New Testament. Creating new allegorical interpretations of Old Testament scripture that isn't seen in the New Testament then call it doctrine seems like a risky move.
Why call it the "Hebrew Bible" isntead of Old Testament?
At around the 44:50 point, it is correctly stated that the idea of eternal torment is not found in the Old Testament. This is a really big problem for the traditional view because God Himself taught us the importance of giving people a fair warning. I discuss this issue of a fair warning in this video: ruclips.net/video/ZdskFCJ704s/видео.html
It is found in book of Judith, so real problem here is not that it is not in Old Testament, but that protestants usually do not accept this book as canonical.
@@vsklblos8060 , for me, the evidence for conditional immortality (aka annihilationism) in the Protestant Bible is clear and strong and consistent. Therefore, the presence of the idea of eternal torment in Judith become just one more confirmation that Judith should not be included in the Bible. Here's a video I made with the top 20 verses that support annihilationism: ruclips.net/video/NWeWZx875kE/видео.html
@@MarkWCorbett1 Ultimately this leads to question: How we know that any book is book of bible? Because if we know that some book is surely book of bible, then we know that if we see contradiction with rest of books we also know are in bible, it means that we did not understand something. Because otherwise we can turn this on both directions in sense that if some books do not agree with Judith, we need to get rid of those books, because they contradict bible, so they can not be in bible.
@@MarkWCorbett1 conditional immortality is not the same as annihilationism. death is the separation of soul and body, not the cessation of existing. Immortality is the absence of death, so it's true that the absence of the separation of soul and body is conditional.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription , do you believe that the souls and bodies of the unsaved will be separated after the final judgment?