Mormons deny eternal punishment in Hell

We continue our comments on the manuscript sent to us by a Mormon called Stephen.(*) Click here to see the other articles in this series. You can also go to the Mormonism page to find all the articles that are in this refutation of Stephen’s document.

___

Stephen continues:

There is a great misunderstanding of the term, Hell, in the Bible, as there is for the terms, punishment, destruction, and in certain cases, everlasting.

Yes, Mormons have a great misunderstanding of these terms, and yet they boast to be teachers of the ignorant…

Stephen continues:

“Who (those who refuse to know God and who persecute His saints) shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.” (2 Thes. 1:9)

Those who do not obey the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: it seems Stephen purposefully avoided to mention this in his added parenthesis…

Stephen continues:

The Greek word for “destruction” here is olethros. It means the loss of a life of blessings after death, or future misery.

No, olethros is from the verb ollumi, and that verb means “to destroy”. That’s a verb used in the Bible about death when it comes as a judgment or a punishment; it means a real and complete death or punishment coming as a result of a judgment: “I pursued mine enemies, and destroyed them, And I turned not again till they were consumed.” (2 Samuel 22:38); “And the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword and slaughter and destruction, and did what they would to those that hated them.” (Esther 9:5); “And in thy loving-kindness cut off mine enemies, and destroy all them that oppress my soul: for I am thy servant.” (Psalm 143:12) — Just a side note: it is in His loving-kindness that God will cut off our enemies… — As you see, these verses are talking about complete death coming as a punishment, and not about just a loss of a life of blessings after death as Stephen imagines. It’s about the loss of life fully and completely, i.e. the complete loss of the approving presence of God. They are fully separated from God spiritually, and that’s spiritual death in Hell.

Stephen continues:

It would be just that if we were cut off from the presence of the Lord.

No, destruction is not misery, but complete spiritual death, i.e. complete separation from God. When we are cut off from the presence of God, the result is not just misery or lack of blessedness, but spiritual death. Misery is the result of this death. In the Bible, death never means annihilation. Just as the separation of the spirit from the body means biological death, in the same way the separation of God from man means the spiritual death of that man. In the Bible, death means separation, the being cut off from the presence of God. The result of this is misery. So destruction is not just misery, but a real separation from God.

Stephen continues:

Besides, if olethros really meant “destruction”—as in total annihilation, then there would be no need to add “from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”

Yes, it’s not annihilation, as we have seen. It’s also not just misery, but real death, real spiritual death. If it were only misery, then the word “destruction” would not be used in that verse. This word “destruction” is used in the Bible in the sense of “complete death as punishment”, as we have seen above. Stephen and Mormons do not have the right to change the meaning of this word to fit their desires.

Stephen continues:

That would be redundant, as being destroyed would put you out from everyone’s presence, let alone from God’s glory.

To be destroyed from the presence of God means to be totally cut off from His presence; it does not mean annihilation. We read above how the Jews destroyed their enemies. That does not mean that those enemies were annihilated, but they were completely dead biologically. While those Old Testament verses were talking about biological destruction, they were an image of the spiritual destruction about which the New Testament talks more largely. Spiritual destruction is a real spiritual death that comes on sinners, on both their bodies and spirits (because sinners also will rise on the Day of Judgment), as the punishment for their sin, for the fact that they refused the light and loved darkness, because their works were the shameful works of darkness.

Stephen continues:

“And these (those who claim to be Christian but do not serve others) shall go away, into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” (Matt. 25:46)

Once again, in the parenthesis, Stephen avoids the Gospel… “These” are those who are goats by nature, and who are called goats even before the judgment begins… They are known by their fruits as they don’t do good works, but it is not their bad works that made them goats; their bad works are the fruit of their nature and not its cause. As you see, this is about what the Gospel is, i.e. about the new birth and true repentance of life, and Stephen just dismissed this fact as if it were not even mentioned by the Lord…

Stephen continues:

The Greek word, kolasis, is correctly rendered as “punishment.” These dead will go away and be punished. But what does everlasting mean here? We are familiar with the terms, Everlasting Life or Eternal Life. This is not simply immortality. Immortality means to live forever. Every human being on this planet will be resurrected and live forever. However, not all will receive Everlasting Life. Everlasting is an adjective describing the type of life a particular immortal life will be. Everlasting, or its synonym, Eternal, refers to Deity.

Ouch! Stephen once again displayed his ignorance of what “life” is in such contexts. In the expression “eternal life”, it is not the adjective “eternal” that gives the expression the meaning of “quality of life”, but the word “life” itself. The word “life” in the Bible does not just mean “existence”, and thus the expression “eternal life” does not mean “eternal existence”. Stephen rightly said that the unbelievers also will exist forever, but they will exist forever in Hell; they will not have eternal life, but eternal death. It is for this reason that the biblical authors did not always need to add this adjective “eternal” to “life” in order to express this “quality of life”: “He that has the Son has life: he that has not the Son of God has not life.” (1 John 5:12) As you see, in this verse, the Apostle John did not have to add the adjective “eternal” in order to express the quality of life, because the word “life” means that already. The adjective “eternal” comes to express the fact that this life is permanent and will stay forever. The death or destruction of sinners in Hell also will be eternal.

Now, to say that “everlasting” or “eternal” refers to Deity is just an out of context error. Yes, God is Eternal, but that has nothing to do with the context of the verse that we are studying. Talking about Deity in this context to explain the adjective “eternal” is just like talking about Deity in a context where the true Christians are called a holy nation to explain the adjective “holy”… That’s going off topic and showing a deep ignorance. What the text of Matthew 25 is saying is that the righteous will have eternal life, while the unrighteous will have eternal death; that’s final; that’s forever; that will never change again.

And in this section, Stephen is talking about Matthew 25:46 which talks about the everlasting punishment, and he philosophizes about the meaning of the word everlasting, as if the same passage in Matthew 25 had not explained clearly what that word “everlasting” means… The Lord Jesus told us in this passage that ALL the unrighteous will go to the eternal fire, i.e. the eternal lake of fire, which is reserved for the devil and his angels (as Revelation also confirms): “Then shall he say also to those on the left, Go from me, cursed, into eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matthew 25:41). Revelation explains that in this expression “eternal fire”, “eternal” means “forever and ever”: “And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10) The torments of the lake of fire are forever and ever. And the prophet Daniel already told us that this punishment in the lake of fire will be everlasting (Hebrew: olam, lit. world without end, perpetual, time out of mind, everlasting): “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame, to everlasting contempt.” (Daniel 12:2)

By the way: we have previously seen how Stephen was talking about the “eternal soul”, and how he tried to prove with that that our souls existed from eternity past. I wonder why in that context “eternal” didn’t mean Deity for him, while in this context he changed his mind and made the same adjective mean Deity…

Confusion…

Stephen continues:

Eternal or Everlasting Life refers to the type of Life God not only lives, but bestows on others,

And eternal punishment refers to the type of punishment God bears and bestows on others?… Eternal death means the type of death God has?… Readers, do you see where blindness may lead?…

Stephen says:

Eternal or Everlasting Life refers to the type of Life God not only lives, but bestows on others, those of us who qualify through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and our faithfulness.

The Bible says that none of us qualifies by anything we may do, and that we all deserve eternal death. Eternal life is a GIFT, and not something we deserve (see Romans 6:23). We have seen the details about this before. Read for example: How to be justified before God? and How to be saved?

Stephen continues:

Everlasting Punishment refers to the type of punishment God bestows on those of us who qualify for punishment, no matter how long it lasts.

No, it refers to the permanence of the punishment, as we have seen. Other passages of the Scripture make this clear: “And if thine eye serve as a snare to thee, cast it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire, where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:47-48) “Dies not” and “is not quenched” are biblical expressions that refer to the fact that this torment is permanent and will not end. And as we have seen, in the expression “eternal punishment” the adjective “eternal” means “permanent” just as the same adjective means the same thing in the expression “eternal life”. By his darkened mind, Stephen tried to change the evident meaning of “eternal” just to fit his own teaching. How can anyone be deceived so much as to be so blind and not be able to see that he’s dismissing the evident meaning of a word for the sake of the false doctrines of a false prophet called Joseph Smith who contradicted the Bible with his teachings?!…

Stephen continues:

In other words, Everlasting or Eternal Punishment is saying, God Punishment, regardless of its duration.

In other words, you’re pleased to be blind… Let’s take your foolish definition of the adjective “eternal” or “everlasting” (the Greek aiOnion) and try to apply it to some verses of the Bible, and let’s see to which seriously bad results we will get:

“but whosoever shall speak injuriously against the Holy Spirit, to eternity has no forgiveness; but lies under the guilt of an everlasting sin (Mark 3:29)
Does this mean that the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit commits a God sin?… A divine type of sin?… Does it not mean that it is a sin that will not have forgiveness to eternity, as the verse itself explains?…

“while we look not at the things that are seen, but at the things that are not seen; for the things that are seen [are] for a time, but those that are not seen eternal.” (2 Corinthians 4:18)
Does this mean that all what is not seen is God or Divine?… Does it not mean “lasting forever” in contrast with “for a time”, as the verse itself says?…

Your sins have an eternal value, so their punishment in Hell is forever. Don’t be deceived and don’t lie to yourself with false hopes of getting out of that place of eternal torment. The only way to be saved is JESUS CHRIST.

Stephen continues:

We will discuss punishment duration later.

Yeah, it’s always for later, but he says it anyway, with the hope of deceiving some people… He hopes that some people will stop at this point and say to themselves: “Wait a minute! The Church has deceived me! Indeed, eternal does not mean eternal! How have I been deceived so much, and how have I not noticed that eternal does not mean eternal?!”… This is the way people are brainwashed. Stephen wants to confuse his readers who don’t have the explanations that we gave above, and then to try to oblige them to believe the next lies that he will give; under the effect of the confusion, those readers will just believe anything he says, as they will say to themselves: “Seems this guy has a deep knowledge that we don’t have!”… This is how a Mormon is born…

Stephen continues:

“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.” (Matt. 10:28) This verse and Luke 12:4,5 render the Greek word, Gehenna, as “hell.” Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, is located outside Jerusalem. It was a place of refuse in the days of Christ. Perpetual fires burned from the methane gas of fermenting garbage piled there. Prior to that, idolatrous Israelites sacrificed their children there to the god, Moloch. The Savior referred to it as a place of endless torment.

That place outside Jerusalem was an image of the true eternal Gehenna. Today that actual place outside Jerusalem is not even found, and its exact location is even disputed strongly, but that doesn’t mean the true eternal Gehenna is lost and does not exist anymore. If the image does not exist anymore, that doesn’t mean that the reality is also lost. If the Temple was in Jerusalem, that doesn’t mean that Jesus Christ is not the real Temple… If that Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., that doesn’t mean the body of Jesus was also destroyed again in 70 A.D. Stephen needs to learn how to read the biblical images of eternal realities. The Valley of Hinnom was an image of the place of eternal punishment, therefore Jesus used the name Gehenna to refer to that place.

Stephen continues:

The continuous flames were symbolic of the place of torment after death.

It’s good that you admitted that they were continuous flames, and that they symbolized the eternal (continuous, never-ending) flames of Hell… Thus you contradicted all what you were trying to prove with your philosophies about the adjective “eternal”… So Hell is indeed eternal, just as those flames of the Valley of Hinnom symbolized.

Stephen continues:

If the soul ceased to exist at death, as the English word, destroy, appears to indicate here, there would be no torment.

No, the soul does not cease to exist, because “destroy” does not mean “annihilate”. We have seen the details about this.

Stephen continues:

However, the word “destroy” in this verse is an erroneous translation of the Greek word, apollumi.

It’s an exact translation. We don’t need to change the meaning of Greek words just for the sake of Joseph Smith…

Stephen continues:

It means, “vote or consign to eternal misery.”

It has nothing to do with voting or consigning; it’s about cutting off from God’s presence, about real spiritual death.

Stephen continues:

In fact, its past variation, apolese, is translated as “lost” at the end of Matthew 10.

Yes, and “perish”. It’s about death, and not about what Stephen is trying to make it mean.

Stephen continues:

It is therefore fitting for Satan to be called Apollyon by John, given Satan is consigned to eternal misery as the Biggest Loser of all we stood to gain.

Satan is the destroyer, i.e. the killer. Read what Jesus clearly said:

“Ye are of the devil, as [your] father, and ye desire to do the lusts of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44)

Satan is the murderer, the destroyer. We don’t need to listen to the erroneous interpretations of Stephen, because the Bible clearly explains what Satan is. Indeed, that verb means to destroy. The case was closed a long time ago, but I am still answering each point so that Stephen may not say later that we have not quoted him in an exact way.

Stephen continues:

And hopefully, we will not be joining him as co-losers.

If you don’t repent and you don’t put your trust in the true Christ, then you will join him for sure. Don’t waste your life.

Stephen continues:

The soul does not cease to exist at physical death, as our JW friends believe, but it can go to an unpleasant place.

Yes, an unpleasant and ETERNAL place.

Stephen continues:

While the JWs take this extreme, claiming God will annihilate the wicked completely and permanently upon death, most of Christendom misinterprets these verses to another extreme, claiming God Himself will inflict pain and torment upon the wicked, forever.

The Bible clearly says that Hell is eternal, as we have seen.

Stephen continues:

We have already seen how the words “destroy” and “destruction” are not quite what was intended by the original language of the Scripture.

We have seen how “destroy” and “destruction” were the very exact words intended by the original language of Scripture, and we have seen how your dreams were silly dreams of a cultist.

Stephen continues:

Hopefully, this sheds some light on the meaning of Everlasting.

You tried to darken the clear meaning of Everlasting, but it was really a foolish argument, and we have refuted your argument very easily.

Stephen continues:

Keep in mind the wicked will apply self-torment, their conscience inflicting the realization it is they who threw away their salvation—especially when they are given the full recollection of their premortal life and the goals of success they had made in that Realm prior to coming here to earth.

1. The torment will be applied by God Himself, for you admitted that the judgment will be God’s judgment on them.

2. There was no premortal life, as we have seen very clearly.

Stephen continues:

“Weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth” give vivid description of our natural response upon the restored recollection of our premortal life given at Resurrection.

Weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth give a vivid description of the torments that will come upon the sinners who will eternally regret that they had despised a so great Salvation: “how shall we escape if we have been negligent of so great salvation, which, having had its commencement in being spoken [of] by the Lord, has been confirmed to us by those who have heard” (Hebrews 2:3). In the very context where the Lord explains this negligence, He also gives the result of that negligence, i.e. weeping and gnashing of teeth: “From the time that the master of the house shall have risen up and shall have shut the door, and ye shall begin to stand without and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, open to us; and he answering shall say to you, I know you not whence ye are: then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten in thy presence and drunk, and thou hast taught in our streets; and he shall say, I tell you, I do not know you whence ye are; depart from me, all [ye] workers of iniquity. There shall be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves cast out.” (Luke 13:25-28)

The Bible clearly says that the whole regret and torment of Hell are because of sin (“workers of iniquity”), and not because of an imaginary recollection of an imaginary premortal life. I wonder where Stephen read that in the Bible… It’s clear that he read it in the human writings that the false prophet Joseph Smith brought, and he believed all that without even trying to see whether they are true or lies. On the contrary, Stephen is trying to make the Bible say what it doesn’t say in order to defend the lies of Joseph Smith…

Stephen continues:

Those who did not exercise faith in mortality, having demanded proof in mortality, as many do, will be kicking themselves for having made no or insufficient effort to test the concept of faith when given opportunity.

No one is naturally making that effort, because we all are sinners and we are unable to please God. We have seen the details of this in our article How to be saved?

Stephen continues:

Hell is the English rendering of the Hebrew word, Sheol, and of the Greek word, Hades.

Wrong. We have seen how Hell is the English rendering of Gehenna, and even Stephen admitted that previously. Some translations may render Hades as Hell, but those translations are not exact. Let me just quote a very simple example of a verse where the word Hell is the exact English rendering, and you will see how it translates the word Gehenna and not Hades:

“Καὶ ἐὰν σκανδαλίζῃ σε ἡ χείρ σου, ἀπόκοψον αὐτήν καλόν σοι ἐστὶν κυλλὸν εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθεῖν ἢ τὰς δύο χεῖρας ἔχοντα ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὴν γέενναν, εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον” (Μαρκος 9:43)

This is Mark 9:43. As you see, the word translated Hell is the Greek word Gehenna which I have put in bold in the Greek original text.

Do you notice how Stephen is trying to mislead people by bringing into this study the topic of inexact translations, although what is needed here is to study the original text?… He is confused, and he wants to confuse others…

Stephen continues:

These terms literally mean, the unseen or invisible state.

Sheol means pit, a term that indicates the grave.
Hades is from a word that means unseen, and it also indicates the grave, more exactly the unseen world of the dead.

Stephen continues:

It is the temporary abode of the spirits of all who die, to await their turn at Resurrection.

Interestingly, the Bible doesn’t say that the dead are passively waiting there, as Stephen dreams, but look what they do there:

“And it came to pass that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham. And the rich man also died and was buried. And in hades lifting up his eyes, being in torments, he sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” (Luke 16:22-23)

So the righteous is already in the eternal presence of the Lord, while the unrighteous is already being tormented with the torments of Hell! The only difference is that he still does not have the risen body, because the resurrection did not happen yet, so his body is not being tormented yet with the eternal flames of Hell. So I wonder who made Stephen dream that they are awaiting their turn at resurrection, as if the dead will rise in many steps, each in his turn, and as if they are not doing anything now other than waiting… The righteous also are not waiting to go to their Lord, but they are already in their Lord’s presence, worshiping and enjoying His Holy Presence forever and ever: “we are confident, I say, and pleased rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord.” (2 Corinthians 5:8); “But I am pressed by both, having the desire for departure and being with Christ, [for] [it is] very much better” (Philippians 1:23). As soon as the righteous Christian dies, he is in the presence of his Lord; he does not go to wait… The only waiting is for the common resurrection, and it’s not a passive waiting, because the dead are already in the eternal state.

Stephen continues:

“And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:14) Once all are resurrected, there will be no more need for a place to await the Resurrection.

That verse more exactly says: “and death and hades were cast into the lake of fire.” (Revelation 20:14) So death and Hades will not be annihilated, as Stephen ignorantly imagines, but they will be joined to Hell, i.e. to the lake of fire. The lake of fire is Hell. As Hades is the name of the place of death which is the result of sin, so it is the symbol of spiritual death; and as those who are saved by Christ will not see spiritual death, so the righteous is mentioned in the above quoted parable of the rich man and Lazarus as being in the bosom of Abraham, and not in Hades, while the unrighteous is said to be in Hades. All those who are in Hades like this unrighteous man will be thrown in the lake of fire to be tormented forever. Thus, Hell is the natural continuation of Hades and present spiritual death. Death and Hades will be thrown there.

Stephen continues:

The state of “hell” will be discarded like any useless thing. Hell is therefore not a permanent abode.

Hades is not exactly Hell, although it is practically Hell in its eternal torment; and we have seen how Hell is eternal. We believe the Bible rather than Stephen’s ignorance.

Stephen continues:

The Lake of Fire can be a permanent abode.

The Lake of Fire IS the permanent abode; it is the eternal Hell.

Stephen continues:

But is it “permanent residence” for all who are not faithful to Christ in mortality?

No, it is the permanent place for ALL the unrighteous, whether they lived before Christ or after Him.

Stephen continues:

John taught how those who do not repent will have “their part”—their appointed time as the Greek word, mesos, denotes—in the Lake of Fire.

Note that Stephen didn’t give you the reference… Let’s see where he read the word mesos

“Τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ φονεῦσιν καὶ πόρνοις καὶ φαρμάκοις καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις, καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ψευδέσιν, τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος.” (ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 21:8)

This is Revelation 21:8. The word that Stephen made mesos is put in bold… Is that mesos?? NO! It is meros… What does meros mean? Does it mean appointed time as Stephen imagined? NO! It is from the verb μειρομαι meiromai (that is, to get as a section or allotment)… It means a division, a share, a portion, a part. So the translation is exact, and Stephen is hallucinating with the hallucinations of Joseph Smith… This same word meros is used in the following verse in its feminine form merida or meris:

“but there is need of one, and Mary has chosen the good part, the which shall not be taken from her.” (Luke 10:42)

In this verse, the word part is the Greek meris which is the feminine of meros. If this word means appointed time as Stephen said in his hallucination, then does this mean that Mary chose the good appointed time, and that good appointed time shall not be taken from her?…

Do you see how much Stephen is confused? He just naively believed his Mormon teachers that the Greek word is mesos and that it means appointed time

Stephen continues:

They will suffer for their own sins—until they have “paid the uttermost farthing” (Matthew 5:25,26)

Yes, this means they will suffer forever and ever, because the uttermost farthing is ETERNAL DEATH. The wages of sin is death, says the Bible. This is eternal spiritual death. Let me see how much is the cost that those unrighteous will have to pay when it is said that it is eternal… Is it 1000 years of torment? 2000? One million? No, ETERNAL. When does the uttermost farthing come in eternity?… It just doesn’t come, because eternity does not end… Stephen once again made the mistake of misquoting Scripture. In that passage (Matthew 5), the Lord was explaining eternal truths with figures of speech and with parables. He said there that you should cut your hand or take out your eye if they make you stumble… I hope Stephen does not take out his eye when it makes him stumble… That’s a figure of speech… In the same way, the Lord gave the parable of one being led to the court and then getting thrown in jail until he pays all what is due. That which is due may seem limited in the parable, but that’s a parable; in reality, what is due is eternal death in Hell. Stephen quoted a verse from that parable to prove that the punishment of Hell is not eternal… That would be like quoting the verse about throwing your eye to prove that we should take out our eyes and throw them…

Stephen continues:

with limited results before being sent to their kingdom, the Lowest or Telestial Kingdom, described by Paul as the glory of the stars.

Quote the Bible about this dream. Paul was not talking about any such kingdom, and we have seen that Hell is eternal.

Stephen continues:

We will briefly discuss heavenly degrees of glory and those who qualify for each, shortly.

Yes, Stephen wishes that the unrighteous also may have some heavenly degree of glory, because he has no idea about what sin means and how much God hates sin.

And he continues:

The Lake of Fire, Outer Darkness, is reserved as a permanent abode for those who sin against the Holy Ghost.

No, the Bible says that the Lake of Fire will be the place where ALL the unrighteous will be tormented forever and ever:

“But to the fearful and unbelieving, [and sinners], and those who make themselves abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part [is] in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)

As you see, it’s not only those who sin against the Holy Spirit… It is: the fearful, the unbelieving, the sinners, those who make themselves abominable, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolators, all liars… Brief: it is all the unrighteous who will not inherit the Kingdom of God: “Do ye not know that unrighteous [persons] shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor abusive persons, nor [the] rapacious, shall inherit [the] kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strifes, jealousies, angers, contentions, disputes, schools of opinion, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revels, and things like these; as to which I tell you beforehand, even as I also have said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit God’s kingdom.” (Galatians 5:19-21) So ALL the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and their part will be in the lake of fire forever. And we have seen above how the Lord said that ALL the unrighteous (the goats) will go to eternal fire, the lake of fire forever. How to cease being an unrighteous person and to be righteous? This question is answered in detail in our article How to be justified before God?

Grace be with you!
Disciple of Jesus Christ

___

Posted in: Religious Movements / Mormonism
This is part 24 of the series: Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Answer to a Mormon’s manuscript, Religious Movements. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Mormons deny eternal punishment in Hell

  1. Jacob says:

    I posted a part of this article in our discussion thread with Stephen on Facebook, so I will post here the resulting conversation.

    I wrote:

    The newest article:

    Mormons deny eternal punishment in Hell
    http://wp.me/pt9Sv-Xd

    In this article, the following passage is very interesting:

    ——- Quote starts here ——-

    Stephen continues:

    John taught how those who do not repent will have “their part”—their appointed time as the Greek word, mesos, denotes—in the Lake of Fire.

    Note that Stephen didn’t give you the reference… Let’s see where he read the word mesos…

    “Τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἁμαρτωλοῖς καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ φονεῦσιν καὶ πόρνοις καὶ φαρμάκοις καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις, καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ψευδέσιν, τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος.” (ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ 21:8)

    This is Revelation 21:8. The word that Stephen made mesos is put in bold… Is that mesos?? NO! It is meros… What does meros mean? Does it mean appointed time as Stephen imagined? NO! It is from the verb μειρομαι meiromai (that is, to get as a section or allotment)… It means a division, a share, a portion, a part. So the translation is exact, and Stephen is hallucinating with the hallucinations of Joseph Smith… This same word meros is used in the following verse in its feminine form merida or meris:

    “but there is need of one, and Mary has chosen the good part, the which shall not be taken from her.” (Luke 10:42)

    In this verse, the word part is the Greek meris which is the feminine of meros. If this word means appointed time as Stephen said in his hallucination, then does this mean that Mary chose the good appointed time, and that good appointed time shall not be taken from her?…

    Do you see how much Stephen is confused? He just naively believed his Mormon teachers that the Greek word is mesos and that it means appointed time…

    ——- Quote ends here ——-

    Quoted from “Mormons deny eternal punishment in Hell”, http://wp.me/pt9Sv-Xd, by Disciple of Jesus Christ, https://jdisciple.wordpress.com/. Quoted by permission.

    This is funny: Stephen, before you claim to know what Greek words mean, go study some Greek… 🙂 Mesos, huh? 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Be in Peace! 🙂
    Jacob†

  2. Jacob says:

    Stephen Douglas replied:

    “Does it mean appointed time as Stephen imagined? NO! It is from the verb μειρομαι meiromai (that is, to get as a section or allotment)… It means a division, a share, a portion, a part.”

    Golly, doesn’t that pretty much mean the same thing? Mesos and meros are practically synonymous, as mesos usually denotes a portion or part of time and meros denotes a portion or part of some general thing. But we see Matthew 24:51 use “mesos” to describe a “portion” of something unspecified, which makes mesos a synonym of meros in this verse. As far as Martha’s complaint to Jesus about what Mary was doing, not helping her with chores, using her TIME to tend to the Savior, it was specifically about the TIME she spent with the Savior, so “merida” in Luke 10:42 refers to TIME, again making merida, a substantive of the verb meiromai, a reference to a portion of time, with a beginning time and an end time.

    Nice try, Giacobbe! Perhaps YOU are the one who is confused, or did you split hairs on meros/mesos on purpose to deceive, hoping whatever readers you have will lock on to my misreading of meros in Revelation and not see, by YOUR definition, they mean the same thing?!

    “Quoted by permission.” Do you have to ask yourself permission to print what YOU wrote elsewhere? Or was this response from one of your Legion?

  3. Jacob says:

    Then I replied:

    🙂 🙂 Oh no, Stephen once again failed to keep his promise… 🙂 Was it not me who would have the last word, Stephen?? 🙂 Did you not say that you wouldn’t answer? 🙂

    As Stephen is trying to answer here and is not answering on the concerned blog, then I conclude that he thinks he is unable to answer them. Correct me if I am wrong. 🙂

    Stephen said:
    Golly, doesn’t that pretty much mean the same thing? Mesos and meros are practically synonymous, as mesos usually denotes a portion or part of time and meros denotes a portion or part of some general thing.

    My reply:
    🙂 🙂 🙂 But you said that it is the word mesos which is used in that passage, while in fact the word meros is used. 🙂 Oh, the shame… Don’t you feel embarrassed for defending that false prophet blindly and for listening to those Mormon teachers without testing what they say??

    Oh… 🙂 By the way… 🙂 Mesos doesn’t mean a portion of time. 🙂 It means “middle” or “midst”… 🙂 Ah, you’re embarrassing yourself much here…

    Now I see why you’re not even trying to comment on those articles that are written on that blog as a reply to your silly document… 🙂

    _____________

    Stephen said:
    But we see Matthew 24:51 use “mesos” to describe a “portion” of something unspecified, which makes mesos a synonym of meros in this verse.

    My reply:
    Man! Wake up!! In Matthew 24:51 the SAME word meros is used!! There is no mesos!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

    Stephen, PLEASE stop making a joke of yourself. Go study some Greek and stop listening to your deceitful leaders.

    ____________

    Stephen said:
    As far as Martha’s complaint to Jesus about what Mary was doing, not helping her with chores, using her TIME to tend to the Savior, it was specifically about the TIME she spent with the Savior, so “merida” in Luke 10:42 refers to TIME, again making merida, a substantive of the verb meiromai, a reference to a portion of time, with a beginning time and an end time.

    My reply:
    🙂 There is not ONE word about time in that whole passage. 🙂 🙂 On the contrary, Jesus told Martha that she’s preoccupied with many THINGS, and that Mary has chosen the good PORTION. The contrast is between “many things” and the portion that Mary chose. There is nothing about time there. 🙂 And the word meros means portion. Just that. 🙂

    Ah, how embarrassing for you…

    __________

    Stephen said:
    Nice try, Giacobbe! Perhaps YOU are the one who is confused, or did you split hairs on meros/mesos on purpose to deceive, hoping whatever readers you have will lock on to my misreading of meros in Revelation and not see, by YOUR definition, they mean the same thing?!

    My reply:
    Man!! You made a whole argument from that word mesos, and it is NOT THERE!! 🙂

    You’re really pitiful! Even when you see your error, you don’t want to admit it! That’s typical of cultists.

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    “Quoted by permission.” Do you have to ask yourself permission to print what YOU wrote elsewhere? Or was this response from one of your Legion?

    My reply:
    It’s not your business to know who is writing those articles on that blog. 🙂 Your business is to read them and see how silly your arguments are.

    Next time don’t challenge a Christian to ask for your document, because we Christians can work together like you’re seeing now, and we can make a whole series of biblical answers that can show the silliness of your arguments. Don’t challenge those who have the power of the Sword of the Holy Spirit, cultist! Wake up from your deception and come to the real Christ.

    Be in Peace! 🙂
    Jacob†

  4. Jacob says:

    Then Stephen Douglas wrote:

    Jacob, I answered because you found an error I need to correct. Yes, you are correct; it does say meros rather than mesos, as does Matt. 24:51. I misread the word, twice. That does not change the fact Rev. 21:8 is a portion/part, a division that pertains to time, just as Revelation 20:6 talks about those who have their ‘part’ or ‘meros’ in the first resurrection. Since it is talking about WHEN their resurrection happens, during the first resurrection, meros in this verse refers to their appointed time to be resurrected, again in the first resurrection. I looked up both words in my George Ricker Berry Interlinear and found similar definitions. Although I have not been answering you on the blog, and not much here, either, I have been reading them. Up til now, I have not found anything I felt I needed to correct, so I did not answer you. Sorry, but that will not change. I will check in, but unless I see something I consider worth my time to respond, I won’t. Call it what you want. I don’t really care what challenging insults you use as attempts to get me to respond.

    BTW, the mistake was mine, not misinformation from my leaders. I don’t think Biblical scholars from my church, such as Hugh Nibley or Daniel Peterson, would have made such errors, as they were/are scholars of ancient languages. I have told you I am not a scholar; I just like to learn and I do speak a few languages, which helps me understand the potential for multiple connotations of words in other languages.

    James, if you really are part of an Armenian family whose names are variations of Jacob, and not part of Jacob Bishop’s legion of writers on his blog, I apologize for jumping to conclusions about the coincidental name association with him. It also doesn’t help that neither of you has a profile picture of yourself. And you are correct that mesos refers to a middle portion, but it also can refer to a middle portion of time, as can meros.

  5. Jacob says:

    Then I replied:

    Oh, Stephen answered again… 🙂

    Stephen said:
    Jacob, I answered because you found an error I need to correct.

    My reply:
    🙂 And yet you didn’t correct on the concerned blog. 🙂 And they post each time many many errors from your document, and you never posted to admit your error. Ah, and even here, you are not admitting that you built your whole argument on that wrong reading!! So when will you admit that your argument is totally wrong??

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    Yes, you are correct; it does say meros rather than mesos, as does Matt. 24:51. I misread the word, twice. That does not change the fact Rev. 21:8 is a portion/part, a division that pertains to time, just as Revelation 20:6 talks about those who have their ‘part’ or ‘meros’ in the first resurrection.

    My reply:
    :):) See?? You are still not admitting that you were in error!! Stephen, wake up, dear friend? 🙂 🙂 Meros does not mean a portion of time; it means a lot, a part that one gets. 🙂 Revelation 21:8 does not talk about a time, but about a part or a lot. 🙂

    ____________

    Stephen said:
    Since it is talking about WHEN their resurrection happens, during the first resurrection, meros in this verse refers to their appointed time to be resurrected, again in the first resurrection.

    My reply:
    Meros means a part that one gets. Those people got their part in the first resurrection. That’s not about time, but about a portion that one gets. It’s the same with Mary who chose the best lot for her. 🙂 There is nothing about time.

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    I looked up both words in my George Ricker Berry Interlinear and found similar definitions.

    My reply:
    Which both words, Stephen? :):) You still didn’t get convinced that mesos means “midst” or “middle”?? You still didn’t get convinced that meros means a lot?? How can one convince a person like you who doesn’t really want to know the truth??

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    Although I have not been answering you on the blog, and not much here, either, I have been reading them. Up til now, I have not found anything I felt I needed to correct, so I did not answer you.

    My reply:
    If you couldn’t even admit your error about this word meros, how will you see the other errors that are less evident?? Blindness is really sad…

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    Sorry, but that will not change. I will check in, but unless I see something I consider worth my time to respond, I won’t. Call it what you want. I don’t really care what challenging insults you use as attempts to get me to respond.

    My reply:
    As you saw with this example of the word meros, errors cannot be defended. You are unable to defend your arguments before the powerful attacks of biblical arguments that have destroyed your dreams and your satanic doctrines. The right thing for you to do now is to realize the wrong way in which you are and to look for the truth.

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    BTW, the mistake was mine, not misinformation from my leaders.

    My reply:
    A person who does a so evident error in reading a very simple Greek word is surely not a Greek scholar. So you either heard this argument about mesos from one of your leaders, or you are lying now. Choose! 🙂 Or explain to me how you built this argument on a Greek word without knowing Greek.

    🙂

    _________________

    Stephen said:
    I don’t think Biblical scholars from my church, such as Hugh Nibley or Daniel Peterson, would have made such errors, as they were/are scholars of ancient languages. I have told you I am not a scholar; I just like to learn and I do speak a few languages, which helps me understand the potential for multiple connotations of words in other languages.

    My reply:
    So as you don’t know Koine Greek, then tell me whose argument is this one which is built on mesos. 🙂 Go ahead, confess. You said you are learning; then tell me who taught you this argument. 🙂

    ____________

    Stephen said:
    And you are correct that mesos refers to a middle portion, but it also can refer to a middle portion of time, as can meros.

    My reply:
    :):) Stephen, you’re obstinately not wanting to learn, aren’t you? 🙂 Mesos does NOT mean a portion; it does NOT mean a middle portion. 🙂 It means MIDDLE, MIDST, BETWEEN. It’s just that! It’s not a portion at all!! And meros is not about a portion of time, but about a portion that one gets, i.e. a lot.

    Be in Peace! 🙂
    Jacob†

  6. Jacob says:

    Then Stephen Douglas said:

    As I said, I misread it from my copy of Berry’s interlinear, not from having heard it from anyone in my church. I looked it up all by myself, so the mistake is mine and mine alone. Believe what you want.

    And the lexicon at the back of the interlinear gives the definitions of both meros and mesos. For mesos, it says, “middle, of time or place, in the midst of…” so it can refer to time. For meros, it says, “a part; hence, (1) a share; (2) a part, as a result of a division.” They both mean a portion, with a beginning and and ending of that portion.

    And I beg to differ about meros not being used to describe a portion of time for Mary, as that is exactly the issue for which Martha complained, as Mary spent her time tending to the Savior, not helping with the chores. And I will not admit what you say Rev. 20:6 means, as it is referring to a portion of the timeframe of the first resurrection, which takes place prior to the second resurrection.

  7. Jacob says:

    Then I replied:

    As I said, Stephen finds it very difficult to admit that his argument was wrong because he built it on a wrong reading…

    Stephen said:
    As I said, I misread it from my copy of Berry’s interlinear, not from having heard it from anyone in my church.

    My reply:
    Do you mean you read the Greek interlinear although you don’t know Greek? And that suddenly this argument fell on you like an inspiration? :):)

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    I looked it up all by myself, so the mistake is mine and mine alone. Believe what you want.

    My reply:
    Why did you look it up originally, when you didn’t have any argument built on any Greek word, as you didn’t know Greek?? Did you not say that you’re learning?? :):)

    I wonder why it is so difficult for Mormons to admit that their doctrines are built on silly and wrong assumptions…

    _____________

    Stephen said:
    And the lexicon at the back of the interlinear gives the definitions of both meros and mesos. For mesos, it says, “middle, of time or place, in the midst of…” so it can refer to time.

    My reply:
    :):) As you see, mesos simply means “middle” or “midst”, and it is NOT the word used in the verse which you used for your silly argument in your document. 🙂 So stop telling me about mesos, because the word is meros and it has NOTHING to do with mesos which itself is not linked to time and simply means “middle”. 🙂

    _____________

    Stephen said:
    For meros, it says, “a part; hence, (1) a share; (2) a part, as a result of a division.” They both mean a portion, with a beginning and and ending of that portion.

    My reply:
    :):):):):):) What beginning and what end??? :):):) It’s a SHARE, a LOT, a part that falls to someone as his own!!! :):) It’s not about time; it’s about a lot. What do you mean by the beginning and the end of a share??? 🙂

    As you’re so ignorant in Greek, I advise you to go and ask a Mormon leader about this, because you’re making a joke of yourself and of all Mormons. I hope they will show you how meros has nothing to do with time, but it’s a SHARE, a LOT. 🙂 It’s not a portion like a piece of something. 🙂 It’s a LOT, a part that is given to someone. Let me help you understand with the following:

    “The LORD is the portion of my inheritance and my cup; You support my lot.” (Psalm 16:5)

    In this verse, the word “portion” is a lot, a share that falls to someone. For the Psalmist, the LORD is his part, his lot, the part that is allotted to him. As your lexicon said, the LORD is the part that came to the Psalmist as a result of DIVISION. When you divide a big piece and you distribute the resulting pieces, each person gets a SHARE; THAT is the meros. 🙂 In the Greek Septuagint, the above verse from Psalm 16:5 is:

    “κύριος ἡ μερὶς τῆς κληρονομίας μου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου μου σὺ εἶ ὁ ἀποκαθιστῶν τὴν κληρονομίαν μου ἐμοί”

    As you see, the same word meris (feminine of meros) is used. 🙂 It’s just like the best meris that Mary chose!! 🙂 And it has nothing to do with time. 🙂 Your argument is a silly argument built on your ignorant reading of the Greek word meros.

    ____________

    Stephen said:
    And I beg to differ about meros not being used to describe a portion of time for Mary, as that is exactly the issue for which Martha complained, as Mary spent her time tending to the Savior, not helping with the chores.

    My reply:
    You beg to differ?? :):):):) Who are you to have the right to beg to differ, dear? :):) You don’t know Greek, and you want to beg to differ?? :):) The Greek word meros means a share, a lot, and it has NOTHING to do with time. Plus, the very passage tells you that it is not about time, but about many THINGS and one THING that Mary chose as her meros. 🙂 Read:

    “But the Lord answered and said to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered about so many THINGS; but only one THING is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”” (Luke 10:41-42)

    Mary has chosen the good lot, the good share. 🙂

    How can one convince an ignorant person who doesn’t know Greek and boasts to be able to beg to differ about its meaning?… Even his lexicon does not say meros means a part of something, but a share, a lot… And he still doesn’t want to get it…

    _____________

    Stephen said:
    And I will not admit what you say Rev. 20:6 means, as it is referring to a portion of the timeframe of the first resurrection, which takes place prior to the second resurrection.

    My reply:
    Revelation 20:6 is talking about the lot that those people got. But how can you admit this when you are ignorant about the Greek words and you still insist that you are right?? You can’t convince with the truth a person who doesn’t want to know the truth…

    Be in Peace! 🙂
    Jacob†

  8. Jacob says:

    And then Stephen Douglas replied:

    Yes, let all readers of your blog see. So what? You sure get worked up over the fact I refuse to agree with you or accept your expertise. My MSS is not a “Mormon document.” It’s mine. And how many readers do you have?

    BTW, out of curiosity, why have you spent so much time answering my unpublished, un-scholarly, personal MSS, which I explain at the Intro as my personal understanding of LDS doctrine, when you know it is not official LDS documentation? After all, you know I have no intention of converting to your brand of Christianity, nor will your snide remarks about how we are creatures and not literal spirit children of God make me realize, “Oh, Jacob is right, we are just creatures, being formed at conception!” That will never happen. If for some reason I were to not believe the LDS church is the restored church of Christ, I would revert to agnosticism, as NONE of the other churches in Christendom is acceptable to me. I could never accept the Trinity, which is unfathomable to me. I could also never accept that God has only created this one world to populate with His creatures, having never done anything like it in the past eternity or having any intent do it in future eternity. Such a whimsical god who creates human beings for his own entertainment that did not exist in some form prior to creation means we did not need to be created, and that we were only created because that god was lonely and or bored. I could not believe in a god who needs his adoring fans to sit around for eternity, doing nothing but singing his praises for having created them. And I could never accept that God would leave us alone to our own personal interpretation of ancient writings, the original MSS of which have long been gone, so as to be stuck being instructed by the likes of you, an anonymous man or woman who is obsessed with my unscholarly MSS.

    So, tell me, why do you bother? Why not go after real scholars of my faith who have published works by the LDS church?

  9. Jacob says:

    And I replied:

    Welcome back, Stephen. 🙂

    Stephen said:
    Yes, let all readers of your blog see. So what?

    My reply:
    I see how much you really wanted the readers to see… Maybe that’s why you didn’t correct your mesos error on that blog… 🙂

    _____________

    Stephen said:
    You sure get worked up over the fact I refuse to agree with you or accept your expertise.

    My reply:
    Stephen, wake up: you sent a document claiming to have expertise, and you proved to be a cultist who doesn’t want to admit his errors.

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    My MSS is not a “Mormon document.” It’s mine. And how many readers do you have?

    My reply:
    So you’re not a Mormon? Your document is a JW document? :):)

    Go and see the blog’s stats. 🙂 And you can also see how many members the blog has on their page on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/Disciple.Jesus.Christ. All these are reading the updates about your silly document.

    ____________

    Stephen said:
    BTW, out of curiosity, why have you spent so much time answering my unpublished, un-scholarly, personal MSS, which I explain at the Intro as my personal understanding of LDS doctrine, when you know it is not official LDS documentation?

    My reply:
    There are many reasons. I will tell you about the main reasons:

    1. Because you challenged us to ask for your document, claiming that no Evangelical Christian is daring to ask for it. So we asked for it and showed you why “Evangelical” Christians, as you call them, are not asking for it: because it is a silly personal document that has no valid argument.

    2. We want to prove to everyone that Mormons contradict each other in their doctrines, and each of them has a different doctrine as he wishes. We have seen this in the first articles in that series of replies.

    3. And this is the most important reason: we wanted to have a series about Mormon false teachings, and your document came on time! 🙂 We didn’t have a section about Mormonism on that blog, so your document helped us have one. 🙂 That’s why we are taking our time in answering, because we are not in a hurry; we have already refuted the whole of your document in the first articles, and now we’re answering the rest. Our goal is to study biblical truths more deeply and to see the errors of Mormonism under the light of Scripture. As the subtitle of our blog says, we’re at the feet of the Lord Jesus Christ, listening to Him and learning. We are not in a hurry, because your document has already proven itself to be a joke. 🙂

    _____________

    Stephen said:
    After all, you know I have no intention of converting to your brand of Christianity, nor will your snide remarks about how we are creatures and not literal spirit children of God make me realize, “Oh, Jacob is right, we are just creatures, being formed at conception!” That will never happen.

    My reply:
    🙂 But at least readers will be careful of the poisonous teachings of Mormons that want to make man a god just as Satan promised Eve and he proved to be a liar…

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    If for some reason I were to not believe the LDS church is the restored church of Christ, I would revert to agnosticism, as NONE of the other churches in Christendom is acceptable to me.

    My reply:
    This is what you are not getting as a Mormon: that you are not called to convert to a church, but to Christ.

    __________

    Stephen said:
    I could never accept the Trinity, which is unfathomable to me.

    My reply:
    Yes, the Bible says that God is unfathomable to sinners. So either something is fathomable for you, or you don’t believe it? So you think you can, as a miserable man, understand God’s Nature? You think understanding comes before faith?… But Hebrews 11 says that it is by FAITH that we know and understand…

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    I could also never accept that God has only created this one world to populate with His creatures, having never done anything like it in the past eternity or having any intent do it in future eternity.

    My reply:
    That’s because you think God did not create, but He only made things IN a time called eternity. But eternity is not a time. This has been explained in the following article: https://jdisciple.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/mormons-think-there-is-a-purpose-for-our-creation-greater-than-the-glory-of-god/

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    Such a whimsical god who creates human beings for his own entertainment that did not exist in some form prior to creation means we did not need to be created, and that we were only created because that god was lonely and or bored.

    My reply:
    And we have seen that that’s not why He created us. 🙂 Read the article to which I linked above, and try to answer the arguments. 🙂

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    I could not believe in a god who needs his adoring fans to sit around for eternity, doing nothing but singing his praises for having created them.

    My reply:
    Yeah, that’s what you have been taught, and that’s what you have refused. But if you read that article, you would see how wrong that teaching was that you got. 🙂 But you don’t want to read, and you assume that we believe what people have told you. 🙂

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    And I could never accept that God would leave us alone to our own personal interpretation of ancient writings, the original MSS of which have long been gone, so as to be stuck being instructed by the likes of you, an anonymous man or woman who is obsessed with my unscholarly MSS.

    My reply:
    It was YOU who were obsessed with your manuscript so much that you kept begging me to ask for it. 🙂 And now that we got it and we’re answering it, you say it’s us who are obsessed? 🙂 I have told you above why we are answering your document.

    All the original manuscripts of the Bible are with us in those copy manuscripts that we have now. God has not left us to ourselves; the Bible contains 66 Books that interpret each other. We don’t need human writings like the Book of Mormon or a false prophet like Joseph Smith to interpret for us God’s Word. We have seen that it’s not my or anyone’s interpretation that is right, but only the Bible can interpret itself. 🙂

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    So, tell me, why do you bother? Why not go after real scholars of my faith who have published works by the LDS church?

    My reply:
    Because confused people like you are the fruit of those cultist scholars, and the Lord told us to know them by their fruits. If you are so confused that you don’t know the truth, then I know that your leaders are not teaching you the truth. Plus, there is no official teaching of the Mormons; each has a personal teaching, and even your leaders contradict each other. So we prefer to address you and other readers, because our goal is to make the truth known, and we don’t have time to play with the confusions of your leaders. When I asked on this discussion board for any writing from your leaders that could answer my arguments, you told me that I should ask for your manuscript. Now you refer me back to your leaders? 🙂 🙂

    Be in Peace! 🙂
    Jacob†

  10. Jacob says:

    After some posts that were irrelevant to the topic of this article, Stephen replied again about mesos… I will post the related parts:

    Stephen Douglas said:

    In the following link, I found something relating ‘meros’ to time. It relates to a passage in the Gospel of Thomas, which is not canonical, but it is in Greek. Have a look.

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas103.html

    “In 21c it is a question of knowing the time of attack, but in 103 it is the place of attack that is in question. There is, however, a textual problem here. The Coptic reads literally: ‘Blessed is the man who knows in what part the robbers are coming’ (Wilson, 1973:521). The problem is whether ‘part,’ using the Greek loan-word meros, is to be taken as ‘part (of the property),’ that is, ‘where’ (so Lambdin: 129), or ‘part (of the night),’ that is, ‘when’ (so Guillaumont, 1959:52-53).”

    As far as I know, “when” refers to time, but I may be wrong, as I am certain you will insist.

    ______________________

    Here’s an excerpt from the following link:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ltZBUW_F9ogC&pg=PA585&lpg=PA585&dq=meros+greek+portion+of+time&source=bl&ots=4APCLTpSbz&sig=fpjaF5NFqFiIifsqW0Kc7rbZAwY&hl=en&ei=w3ooTtKPNoPKiALP1cCwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=meros%20greek%20portion%20of%20time&f=false

    1. Secular Greek. From the root (s)mer, “to get or have a share,” meros means “part” in such varied senses as “district,” “department,” “army division,” “political party,” “party at law,” “portion,” “allotted destiny,” and “fixed time or place.”

    There you have it, TWO references showing “meros” as referring to TIME, as in a fixed portion of time, with a beginning and ending of that portion of time. As I said, this is evidence “meros” and “mesos” are synonymous in that respect.

    ________________________

    My question is, will you copy and paste these posts, which show meros and mesos as synonymous in reference to time, to your blog to let your readers get both sides of this discussion?

  11. Jacob says:

    And I replied:

    Stephen said:
    In the following link, I found something relating ‘meros’ to time. It relates to a passage in the Gospel of Thomas, which is not canonical, but it is in Greek. Have a look.

    http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas103.html

    My reply:
    Yes, the Gospel of Thomas is not in the Bible. 🙂 And in the passage that you found, there is, as you see, much debate about what that word meant in that context. I don’t have the Greek text of the Gospel of Thomas, but that is irrelevant, as we have already seen what meros means. Lexicons are made for that purpose. 🙂

    How hard you’re trying! 🙂 You even want to use apocryphal writings to prove your doctrine. 🙂 And your whole doctrine stands on a wrong interpretation of ONE word… 🙂

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    “In 21c it is a question of knowing the time of attack, but in 103 it is the place of attack that is in question. There is, however, a textual problem here. The Coptic reads literally: ‘Blessed is the man who knows in what part the robbers are coming’ (Wilson, 1973:521). The problem is whether ‘part,’ using the Greek loan-word meros, is to be taken as ‘part (of the property),’ that is, ‘where’ (so Lambdin: 129), or ‘part (of the night),’ that is, ‘when’ (so Guillaumont, 1959:52-53).”

    As far as I know, “when” refers to time, but I may be wrong, as I am certain you will insist.

    My reply:
    🙂 You see? There is a problem even in the apocryphal text that you found, and you still insist to build your argument on your wrong definition… 🙂

    I suggest that you be humble and admit that you were wrong, and then turn to the right doctrine instead of embarrassing yourself like this… 🙂

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    Here’s an excerpt from the following link:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ltZBUW_F9ogC&pg=PA585&lpg=PA585&dq=meros+greek+portion+of+time&source=bl&ots=4APCLTpSbz&sig=fpjaF5NFqFiIifsqW0Kc7rbZAwY&hl=en&ei=w3ooTtKPNoPKiALP1cCwAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q=meros%20greek%20portion%20of%20time&f=false

    1. Secular Greek. From the root (s)mer, “to get or have a share,” meros means “part” in such varied senses as “district,” “department,” “army division,” “political party,” “party at law,” “portion,” “allotted destiny,” and “fixed time or place.”

    There you have it, TWO references showing “meros” as referring to TIME, as in a fixed portion of time, with a beginning and ending of that portion of time.

    My reply:
    :):):) Wow, he doesn’t want to get it!! 🙂 Stephen, my dear, wake up and read me carefully: meros means a share, a lot, a part. ONLY that. And according to the context, the share that you get can be different: if the context talks about a person, then that share is a person: Mary’s share (meros) was Christ. If a context talks about an event, then the share (meros) is an event: the share (meros) of the believers is the first resurrection which is NOT the share of the unrighteous as Revelation 20:6 says. If the context talks about a place, then that share (meros) is a place: the share (meros) of the unrighteous is the lake of fire (a place) as Revelation 21:8 says. Meros can also be a share of time if the context is about time. As you see, this link says “fixed time or place” and not “a part of a time or place”. So meros is that WHOLE time or place if it is allotted to someone. I repeat, this is IF the context is about a time or place. And we have seen that the place that is allotted to the unrighteous is the lake of fire; so it’s a fixed place and not a fixed time. The lake of fire is not a time, but a place.

    🙂 You’re incredible; you refuse to admit your error.

    ___________

    Stephen said:
    As I said, this is evidence “meros” and “mesos” are synonymous in that respect.

    My reply:
    🙂 🙂 He still insists!!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 Stephen, mesos has NOTHING to do with time, as does meros. Mesos means “between”. This can be between two any things. And meros means “share” or “lot” or “part”. It can be a share of anything according to the context. Mesos and meros have nothing to do with each other.

    Are you trying to justify your error? You read that mesos, and it’s meros. End of the matter. 🙂 Go play somewhere else. 🙂

    ____________

    Stephen said:
    My question is, will you copy and paste these posts, which show meros and mesos as synonymous in reference to time, to your blog to let your readers get both sides of this discussion?

    My reply:
    🙂 If you have noticed, I have stopped posting the new replies to our blog just after I saw that the matter had reached its end. You don’t have anything to add: you’re repeating your denial of your error, as we have seen. If you think these posts can be of any help to our readers, you can post them to the blog; no one is forbidding you from posting. 🙂 🙂

    Be in Peace! 🙂
    Jacob†

  12. Jacob says:

    Then Stephen replied:

    Jacob,

    Thanks for your time, though you did not answer me with anything I would consider logical or reasonable. Telling me God has revealed Himself through the Bible does not admit what you must admit about believing the Bible to be the Word of God; it is a FEELING it is true, as the Bible does not prove anything. The Bible is a compilation of writings from ancient dead men who claimed to know God. No matter how consistent their doctrine is, which is highly debatable and has no consensus even among you “sola scriptura” Evangelical Christians, you are still basing your faith on what you FEEL about the Bible. If God has not come down and told you, face to face, it is His Word, you can only know it is true by FEELING it is true. Period.

    You are wrong. I don’t need to see God to know He exists, or that the Bible contains SOME, but not all, of His Words. What I cannot accept is that, in your faith, God does not continue to speak today through living prophets, but has left us with private interpretation, such as yours, of His ancient words to ancient dead men, whose original MSSs are not available. If that is the God of Israel, and He expects us to follow and know Him, by the Bible only, then I could never have faith in such a God. My God is a living God who still communicates with man through living prophets. If I am wrong, then I cannot believe in God as you define Him.

    I gave you two references of Greek showing meros refers to TIME, yet you dismiss them because, well, because you say so. It doesn’t matter if the text is aprocryphal or pseudepigraphal, it is Greek and the definitions are from Greek scholars.

    And then, you did say, “Meros can also be a share of time if the context is about time.”

    Thank you for admitting meros can refer to time. You gave your argument about Rev. 21:8 and 20:6 not referring to time; I gave you mine. You say it doesn’t; I say it does. Let your readers decide.

    BTW, do you not realize your people skills are sorely lacking when you tell someone to stop embarassing himself? Who wouldn’t get defensive at that kind of insult and just tune you out? How do you expect me to take you seriously when you make such insults and then finish with “Be in Peace! :)”? It’s like saying, “You’re an idiot, but have a nice day and I hope you will convert to my way of thinking.” Oh yeah, that just makes me want to say, “Wow, Jacob it right. Thank God he had the foresight to insult me so I would see the errors of my ways and want to hearken to his great wisdom.”

    And what’s with you referring to me as “my dear?” Are you sure you are not a woman? (Not that anything’s wrong with you being a woman…)

    _____________________

    And why is your format on your second to last post so wide it cuts off text? It conveniently (for you) cuts off the text that shows meros refers to time. Please fix it to normal width.

  13. Jacob says:

    Then I replied:

    Stephen, you’re a poor man, a very weak man: you’re not able to get rid of the deception of the cult in which you are right now. You may be thinking: What will you say to those people to whom you said you are a Mormon to the end? How could you have made a wrong choice of religion? YOU, Stephen! How can you ever make a wrong choice?… This is how cults imprison people in their deceptions. It needs God’s Grace to be delivered from this prison…

    Stephen said:
    Jacob,

    Thanks for your time, though you did not answer me with anything I would consider logical or reasonable.

    My reply:
    🙂 Readers have already known what Stephen means when he says “logical” and “reasonable”… 🙂 This they knew since we read how he thinks Adam had to choose between two sins, and even before… 🙂

    ________________

    Stephen said:
    Telling me God has revealed Himself through the Bible does not admit what you must admit about believing the Bible to be the Word of God

    My reply:
    🙂 What are you talking about? Are you confused? 🙂 You asked how I know, and I told you it is written in the Bible. Is this so difficult to grasp for a Mormon? 🙂

    _______________

    Stephen said:
    it is a FEELING it is true, as the Bible does not prove anything.

    My reply:
    You don’t believe what the Bible says?! Oh, yes, why am I surprised?… Are you not a Mormon who believes in the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible?…

    ________________

    Stephen said:
    The Bible is a compilation of writings from ancient dead men who claimed to know God.

    My reply:
    No, the Bible is the Word of God who spoke through those men who are living now for Him in Heaven. The Word of God is eternal.

    But yes, you don’t believe God’s Word… I knew it…

    _______________

    Stephen said:
    No matter how consistent their doctrine is, which is highly debatable and has no consensus even among you “sola scriptura” Evangelical Christians, you are still basing your faith on what you FEEL about the Bible.

    My reply:
    What is written in the Bible is not the doctrine of some men, but the Word of God. We all believe what God says, while you Mormons believe what Joseph Smith said.

    And thanks once again for admitting that you are not evangelical. 🙂

    _____________

    Stephen said:
    If God has not come down and told you, face to face, it is His Word, you can only know it is true by FEELING it is true. Period.

    My reply:
    If God comes down and tells you something, how will you know that that is God who is speaking to you? 🙂 You have no idea what you are talking about. 🙂 The only way to know that is God is by what He says, i.e. His Word. It is by faith that we know God.

    ________________

    Stephen said:
    You are wrong.

    My reply:
    No, YOU are wrong. 🙂

    I liked the “strong” argument… You say I am wrong, so that should be right… 🙂 🙂 🙂

    _____________

    Stephen said:
    I don’t need to see God to know He exists, or that the Bible contains SOME, but not all, of His Words.

    My reply:
    🙂 Read what you said above: you said it yourself that I need to see God in order to know. So what applies to me does not apply to you? :):)

    ALL humans know that God exists, but that is NOT the living faith that I am talking about by which we know God. 🙂 You still don’t know the difference between knowing ABOUT God and knowing God… 🙂

    The Bible is the Word of God. Show me any other words that God has said. 🙂

    ________________

    Stephen said:
    What I cannot accept is that, in your faith, God does not continue to speak today through living prophets, but has left us with private interpretation, such as yours, of His ancient words to ancient dead men, whose original MSSs are not available.

    My reply:
    Where did I ever say that God does not speak today?? 🙂 Does He need to contradict Himself in order to be speaking? 🙂 Does He need to send false prophets who contradict what He has already said in order to be speaking? 🙂

    What you’re not getting is that God speaks today the same final Word that He revealed through His Son. It seems you have not read the following article: https://jdisciple.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/the-canon-of-scripture/ Read it carefully. 🙂

    _______________

    Stephen said:
    If that is the God of Israel, and He expects us to follow and know Him, by the Bible only, then I could never have faith in such a God.

    My reply:
    Why? Because you prefer to believe in words of humans as the Word of God?? 🙂 Yeah, the Bible says in the last days people will prefer this.

    _______________

    Stephen said:
    My God is a living God who still communicates with man through living prophets.

    My reply:
    Your god is a self-contradicting god who has contradicted all what the God of the Bible said in the past and still insists that he is the same God of the Bible. Satan is a liar…

    My God is the only living God who spoke to us His final Word through His living Son revealed by His living Word, the Bible. And He speaks today WITHOUT contradicting Himself like your god. 🙂

    _________________

    Stephen said:
    If I am wrong, then I cannot believe in God as you define Him.

    My reply:
    You mean in God as the BIBLE defines Him…

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    I gave you two references of Greek showing meros refers to TIME

    My reply:
    You NEVER gave me ANY reference showing meros refers to time. 🙂 We have seen that it means a part, a share, a lot. Show me ANY reference saying meros means time. I am waiting… 🙂

    ____________________

    Stephen said:
    yet you dismiss them because, well, because you say so.

    My reply:
    No, because I know what that Greek word means; I read the lexicon and I believed that that is what the word means. But you refuse to accept what the lexicon is saying, because you have an agenda. 🙂 We have seen all this in details, and we have seen how you’re embarrassing yourself. Instead of just admitting that you were in error, once you say you misread, and once you come back to say that you were right even if you misread… That’s hypocrite and typical for a cultist.

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    It doesn’t matter if the text is aprocryphal or pseudepigraphal, it is Greek and the definitions are from Greek scholars.

    My reply:
    And yet we have seen that that text is debated. And even if it were not, yet meros in that text does not mean time. As I explained before, ONLY when meros is used as a share of a time IN THE CONTEXT, then it is a share of a time. But in the texts that you used to prove your limited judgment in Hell, meros does NOT refer to a time, because it is NOT linked to any time. In one text it is linked to an event, the first resurrection, so it is a share in an event and not in a time, and in the other it is linked to a place, the lake of fire, so once again it is a share of a place and not of a time. You’re not getting that meros is a Greek word and it has a meaning; you can’t give it any meaning you want. It does NOT mean a part of something! It just means “a part”, “a share”, “a lot”, and it takes the meaning of the words to which it is linked. In the texts that you quoted for your argument, it is linked to an event and to a place, and NOT to a time, so it has NOTHING to do with time, because meros in itself is NOT about time. 🙂

    I am sure you didn’t get it yet. 🙂

    By the way, you didn’t even say meros; you said mesos, and then you insisted that mesos means meros, although we have seen that those two words have nothing to do with each other. 🙂 You’re pitiful in your disgusting denial of the truth…

    _________________

    Stephen said:
    And then, you did say, “Meros can also be a share of time if the context is about time.”

    My reply:
    Yes. Who said that a certain time cannot be the part that one gets or has?? But that is ONLY if the context is talking about a time. The first resurrection is an EVENT and NOT a time, and the lake of fire is a PLACE, and not a time. So in both of these cases meros is NOT linked to a time, so it has NOTHING to do with time. It just means a share.

    How can you get this when you’re ignorant in Greek as we have seen?…

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    Thank you for admitting meros can refer to time.

    My reply:
    🙂 Show me where I ever admitted that meros refers to time. I am challenging you to show me that. 🙂

    __________________

    Stephen said:
    You gave your argument about Rev. 21:8 and 20:6 not referring to time; I gave you mine. You say it doesn’t; I say it does. Let your readers decide.

    My reply:
    OK, let the readers see what God has said in the Bible. 🙂 You are funny when you still debate when you have been embarrassed with your big erroneous argument… 🙂

    _________________

    Stephen said:
    BTW, do you not realize your people skills are sorely lacking when you tell someone to stop embarassing himself? Who wouldn’t get defensive at that kind of insult and just tune you out?

    My reply:
    Only him who is born of God can be able to continue doing right. 🙂 I know what I am doing, my dear. 🙂 Mormons claim to be able NOT to react to evil with evil. 🙂 I am doing what they consider to be evil, and as you said, you are NOT able to react in a godly way. 🙂 That’s one of the proofs that you are NOT born of God. 🙂 I give very practical proofs to people. 🙂 Don’t undermine the Christians with whom you are talking. 🙂 I know how to make you show your real identity. If you have noticed, even when you say blatant lies about biblical Christians, we post them to our blog and we answer them patiently, hoping that you will wake up. We don’t react to your evil with evil; we don’t murmur that your style is making us flee from you, because our faith in God is not based on what YOU do. 🙂 People who tell us that we are pushing them away from God are people who reveal the truth which is in their hearts: that they don’t really know God and that they base their knowledge of God on what people say; they don’t look for the truth by themselves. 🙂

    Brief: what you just said proves that you’re not born of God.

    ______________

    Stephen said:
    How do you expect me to take you seriously when you make such insults and then finish with “Be in Peace! :)”?

    My reply:
    That’s because YOU consider the truth an insult. 🙂 Imagine a person going on the highway, and he sees a sign telling him that the way that he is taking will lead him to death… Imagine him saying: “That’s an insult! How dare they tell me that I am going in the wrong way??” I am sure you will say this person needs psychological care… You won’t say that the person who has put those signs is insulting him… 🙂 But you’re doing just like that person on the highway… 🙂 Have you forgotten that this point has been explained to you on the blog already? Read it again:
    https://jdisciple.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/an-email-from-a-mormon/

    🙂

    ____________________

    Stephen said:
    It’s like saying, “You’re an idiot, but have a nice day and I hope you will convert to my way of thinking.”

    My reply:
    No, that’s a way to say: I want you to realize how wrong your way is, and to turn to Christ and have real Peace in Him alone. 🙂

    _________________

    Stephen said:
    Oh yeah, that just makes me want to say, “Wow, Jacob it right. Thank God he had the foresight to insult me so I would see the errors of my ways and want to hearken to his great wisdom.”

    My reply:
    🙂 Yes, as I said above, only the one who is born of God can see how that is not insult. 🙂

    __________________

    Stephen said:
    And what’s with you referring to me as “my dear?” Are you sure you are not a woman? (Not that anything’s wrong with you being a woman…)

    My reply:
    🙂 That’s an Eastern way of expression. I know: other Western people also made this comment to me, but it’s OK, you people will get used to our Eastern ways of expression. Here in the East, it is a common way to call any cherished person, whether man or woman, as “beloved” or “dear”, not in a sexual sense but in an affectionate way. That’s how Jesus is called in the Bible “the Beloved”. 🙂 I remind you that the people through whom God wrote the Bible were Eastern people who had traditions like ours. 🙂 So when I say “my dear”, hear it as “my dear fellow man”. 🙂

    _________________

    Stephen said:
    And why is your format on your second to last post so wide it cuts off text? It conveniently (for you) cuts off the text that shows meros refers to time. Please fix it to normal width.

    My reply:
    I don’t see what you’re talking about. Please, give me a direct link to the concerned post.

    By the way, I don’t see why I have to be your servant here in posting what you say to the blog. Can’t you post them by yourself? Is anyone forbidding you? 🙂

    Be in Peace! 🙂
    Jacob†

Comments are closed.