Once again you display comments without scripture references…Anywho, if you are referring to Rev 22:15 those people are in the lake of fire and are not camped outside the gates of the city. ( being in the lake of fire is not literally outside the gates…)I’m going to start a new topic on Rev 22:15. Where in Revelation are these people literally camped outside the gates of the city, Justin? Where on earth do you come up with this?
Yes, that verse. Maybe you need to see it in juxtaposition with the one before it:
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.”
Rev. 22:14-15
It’s clear that they are outside of the gates. They are contrasted with those who have washed their robes, and CAN go through the gates of the city. The “dogs” are outside the gates. The Greek word for outside here is “exō” meaning “without, out of doors” and other references using the same word include: Jesus’ mother and brothers being outside the door as he’s teaching, Jesus going outside of the city, Peter being outside the temple during Jesus’ trial, later going “out” into the porch, Jesus leading the blind man out of town, the servants in the parable killing the heir and taking him outside the vineyard, the donkey Jesus rode on being outside the house, the people being outside the Holy of Holies when Zechariah the eventual father of the Baptist went inside to burn incense, etc, etc.
So you see, the word literally means to be “just outside,” which shows that this verse does mean that those people are sitting outside the gates, which is perfect because it’s a throwback to ancient Israel where the lepers would sit outside the gates and cry out unclean, except this time the people are spiritually unclean rather than physically speaking. Leprosy has always been a really good symbol for sin in the bible. If you don’t believe me, take a good look through it.
Sigh: go read my post in the biblical theology section under “What is Revelation 22:15 really telling us” 
INVALID
I meant gifts of other people (in case anyone didn’t understand roofus’ humor).
Not yet, so long as I’m interested in the topic. (I’m far more likely to concentrate too much on it. Typical absent-mindedness. Or as Tom Clancy once quipped, “thintelligence”.)
Except, you didn’t show any simplistic scriptural reference where it says that “the kings of the earth” are put into “the lake of fire”. Because, of course, you couldn’t. That’s a contextual inference, not something stated simplistically anywhere in scripture. A contextual inference I accept (as you might have remembered, but didn’t bother to recall).
If you can make contextual inference appeals, beyond what any individual scripture does or doesn’t say (such as verses 10 and 11 which you quoted, and which do not anywhere refer to “kings of the earth” or a “lake of fire”), then I can too. Which I have already very extensively done.
But which you clearly have not the slightest intention of allowing me to do–so long as the result looks universalistic in doctrine.
Put another way: contextual inferences beyond what individual scriptures do or don’t say in themselves, are fine, so long as I am agreeing with you on something, such as the kings of the earth being thrown into the lake of fire. You only care about “extensive contextual discussion” so long as it looks to be in favor of what you currently believe. But they count for less than nothing, so long as I am disagreeing with you on something, such as those same kings of the earth being evangelized and even saved after being thrown into the lake of fire.
And nope, you couldn’t find any references to being written into “the book of life” in all the places I asked you to look either. Again, you fail according to your criteria and must answer according to contextual inference instead. In this case, you didn’t even bother answering with equivalent parallels to being written into the book of life (much less quoting the OT, provided by us, and quietly allowed for in my criteria for that challenge, where God does write names of the repentant into His “book of remembrance”). In fact, if anything your answer implies that scripture nowhere talks about “FINAL JUDGMENT” except where RevJohn mentions the BoL, as an explanation for why being written into the BoL isn’t mentioned anywhere else. (Which is ridiculous. Also a position I’m pretty sure you don’t actually believe.)
What was that criteria again you were insisting on?
Really? Then we’re back to: why not discuss (including for critique) what I’ve already written on that topic?! I went to the trouble of referencing and discussing a lot of scripture, especially at the end of RevJohn (with chapter and verse cues), in my analysis.
In return you’re asking me for scriptural references I’ve already given, and answers to questions that I’ve already given. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of what I have already spent a lot of time answering, you started asking questions again–and putting some extreme restrictions on how I could answer those questions. Restrictions which were designed to ignore my contextual discussions as irrelevant.
Thus the point of my satirical ridiculous counter-“challenges” (which can otherwise be safely ignored).
If you want prooftexting with extension (extensive?) discussion of context, I’ve already given it. Go discuss that; I’m clearly prepared to discuss it some more (and I could in fact discuss the things I was talking about in even more detail than I did.)
Instead of doing that, you did this sort of thing instead (and keep in mind, this was also after I bothered to comment far more extensively on Isaiah 60, and its relationship to RevJohn, than you’ve done so far)–bold and italic emphases are mine:
So, you want quick and easy extensive contextual discussion? Or quick and easy discussion of some other kind?
That certainly sounds more quick and easy than extensive contextual discussion! Individual scripture references, period, for each specific question. With you designing each specific question and asking only for individual scriptural references supposedly dealing with each specific question. Total particularization.
Could you repeat that?
You yourself call it “simplistic”, and insist on me only providing individual scriptural references to your super-particular questions. Were you asking this for purposes of initiating further discussion on contexts? Or expecting me to finally win-or-lose this way?
So if I cannot merely and simplistically cite individual scriptural references to answer your detailed questions without going any farther beyond that, that’s it, the end, it’s “put to rest”.
Did you want me to extensively discuss contexts for any answers I gave?
Five emphatic denials; one for each complex and highly detailed question. (Your least detailed question was #4; which also happens to be the one I answered with specific scriptural references–as well as continuing the satirical commentary on your overall attempt.)
What was that which you asked me to do? Did you ask me to provide extensive contextual discussion of plenty of scriptural references (which I already did), or did you ask me to provide only simplistic scriptural references to your complex questions?
I think that very paragraph, around your charge that I have misrepresented what you asked me to do, answers the question:
And you can use as many scripture references that support your answers to my counter-challenges as you desire! I was just letting you know in advance that you won’t find your answers anywhere other than certain verses, unless you cheat by using various contextual appeals (such as narrative and thematic logic, including in reference to other than “individual scriptures” as you yourself put it when trying to set the criteria). So, for example, you can use as many scriptural references as you desire to answer my questions about what happens to “the kings of the earth”, but if those scriptures don’t have the phrase “the kings of the earth” in them, you’re going to have to apply something more than simplistic individual scriptural citations to support your position. At which point you will fail to meet the criteria you were trying to set on me.
So, in fact, I didn’t misrepresent you at all. I only spelled out in detail what it means to ask questions under such “simplistic” restrictions.
The fact is, I already gave you “extension discussion of context” for multiple specific scriptural references at the end of RevJohn (plus elsewhere in RevJohn and outside RevJohn, too, where the scriptural refs inside RevJohn seemed related to those other places in scripture.) In fact, I reffed three or four times as many verses as you did.
But you didn’t want to deal with that. So you set up criteria designed to utterly exclude any contextual application by me in any answers I might give. You can say that you’re “looking for both…prooftexting with extension discussion of context”, but the overwhelming facts of what you asked for and how you asked for it indicate you have no interest in dealing with that at all. Not from me anyway.
We can test this, if you like. Supposing I answer, “under the terms you are requiring, nowhere of course”; and setting aside, for the moment, whether those terms are supposed to be “strict” or not. Will your answer be to ask next if the contexts add up that way anyway, and to invite extensive discussion on that? Or will you laugh and call victory for yourself without further discussion whatever, including of contexts?
If it’s the former, then I will gladly admit I misunderstood you (due to what appeared to be massive evidence) to only be looking for simplistic individual scriptural references answering your complex and detailed questions, and that you were indeed, when you asked your questions (and despite the terms you uniformly insisted on while asking), looking for extensive discussion of contexts beyond mere simplistic prooftext citing.
If it’s the latter?–then you will be showing in practice that I didn’t misunderstand or misrepresent you in the least, and that you were trying to exclude any possibility of contextual appeal for my position.
What do you say? Shall we try that experiment?
Oh, wait: you already did! So, let’s see the result–did you indeed inquire whether contexts beyond what individual verses purely and simply, in themselves, do or don’t say? Or, in complete and utter contrast to that, did you indeed “end this” at that point by triumphantly claiming victory over, let’s say, my blind unthinking assurance that I must be correct regardless of the evidence?
Well, there’s the result of that experiment, then. 
So, were you trying to seriously investigate the questions, in any intelligent way? Or were you only trying to come up with any criteria you could think of that would avoid having to deal with what I had already extensively written concerning contexts of the scriptural details?
Bingo. 
If it comes to accurate data and logical validity in putting together the data, for our respective beliefs, you admit you can’t beat me. You can only beat me by trying to come up with a way to ask questions and restrict answers to avoid having to deal with an intelligent result. 
An actually teachable heart would be trying to learn something useful from an acknowledged intelligent result (even if still disagreeing with the result on points.)
What could be helpful would be for Jason to systematically label everything for quick reference. I am not asking for this, just a thought! Then you could tell Aaron- “what is your response to “25c”?”
I hope this discussion doesn’t end in a accusational dismissal of one by the other to justify non-continuance. How about this: if one of you gets angry at the other, can you continue to answer the same questions from the rest of us?
Sure! 
I do sometimes label my points for future reference, btw, although I think A (to his credit) is significantly better about that than I am.
How about you, Aaron- if you get mad at Jason and end the discussion with him, will you answer the relevant questions?
In my opinion, the discussion NEVER ends. Until His return.
I’m not mad at Jason… I just believe his view doesn’t line up with the Word of God. He is frustrated with the fact he can’t answer any of my questions that are relative to his position with scripture references. I don’t want to continue to hear the lame excuses by him being unable to produce scripture support of my questions. Its like beating a dead horse. Sure I will answer any relevant question you have.
Continue? Jason has not answered any of the questions with scripture…why would he do it for you? He will make up some lame excuse for his inability to produce scripture to answer the questions…Jason knows he cannot answer any of my legitimate questions relative to his position with scripture references.
No, my articulate friend…I don’t play Bingo Your intelligent result must be attached to a scripture reference. Go back and answer all my questions that are relative to your position with an intelligent result that has scripture references attached to them. Go ahead, Jason, compile all the accurate data and logical validity in putting together the data, but THEY MUST BE ATTACHED WITH SCRIPTURE REFERENCES! NO MORE EXCUSES! Quit dodging my questions that blow your view out the water… answer them with scripture or concede your view to be unbiblical! I’m tired of playing games.
Sonia
Are we not going to answer my questions and statements relative to your view?
God bless,
Aaron
Now the really interesting thing here, is that Aaron can’t seem to perceive that Jason has answered his questions with scripture. I wonder why that is?
Is that just your way of saying you disagree with Jason’s interpretations? I can’t see how any reasonable person could read Jason’s post and conclude that he is “unable to produce scripture support.” That is being dishonest. Unless you really can’t see that there are scripture references physically present in the body of the post. If that’s the case, I wonder why your computer is getting rid of scripture refs? A demon perhaps?
When I look at Jason’s post, I see lots of scripture. Not as much as I put in my own post–at the time I wrote it, I considered that I was going rather overboard and being redundant. Take another look, honestly, and see if you are really justified in saying that J doesn’t supply scriptural support for his position. Whether you agree or disagree with the application is another thing entirely from saying it’s not there at all.
Sonia
Sonia
I challenge you to show me Jason’s specific scripture references with his answers:
Aaron37 wrote:
Jason, Could you clarify your perspective on a few things based on your response about these Rev. 21:24-27 people (kings et. al.) who you believe stood against Christ but came to the city and were saved.
You mean, beyond everything else I’ve already written on the topic before this comment? That might be possible, I suppose.
Aaron37 wrote:
Were they written in the Book of Life or not?
At the time of the lake of fire judgment, no. Unless they repented while in hades before the general resurrection. The text isn’t clear about whether they repented before the resurrection or afterward, but it doesn’t really matter for our purposes. The text is clear (especially in the Greek–the text of which is stable, for this portion, even in the TR ) that they cannot be entering the city until they’ve been written in, and the text talks about evangelism to bring people like themselves (or who they used to be) inside. Penitent horns of the beast would make a huge evangelical appeal for former followers of theirs!–and (in RevJohn terms) some of those will be entering into the kingdom of heaven before other rebels who are still outside. (A theme, and a warning, repeatedly warned about by Jesus through the Synoptic Gospels, too, although He uses different examples of archetypical sinners that His hearers, especially the Pharisees, wouldn’t be expecting to get in, and certainly not before themselves!)
Aaron37 wrote:
Did they go in the ‘lake of fire’ or not?
If they hadn’t repented by that point, they did. They’re still going to be baptized by Christ in the Spirit and in fire, just like all of us, but any insistence on continuing to rebel will make a big difference in how they experience it. (Even many non-universalistic Christian theologians agree with this!)
Aaron37 wrote:
Where do yo see evangelism going on after the final judgment in Rev 21 & 22?
Already discussed in much detail, in that thread I created last week to discuss such topics (which you said you had read.) Also discussed in some detail in other threads. You yourself quoted part of that analysis at the start of the thread you’re reading right now!–although you only focused on questioning who those “kings of the earth” are. You didn’t bother to really look at or discuss the other portions you yourself quoted.
You’re welcome to cross-examine what I’ve already written on the topic, but I see no need to repeat the whole analysis again here; especially since this comment is already rather long. (Much of what I have already written will be included in answering your questions about my position on what Christ is revealing to John at the end, but I strongly recommend going through the whole exegesis in detail–which is why I provided it for consideration.)
Aaron37 wrote:
When were they ’saved’? Before or after the ‘lake of fire’ event?
For our purposes, it’s probably more important that they were saved after having their butts catastrophically kicked by Christ in Rev 19! (Although, to be fair, that in itself wouldn’t necessarily involve universal salvation, or even the continuing hope for it. It would only involve post-mortem salvation of some kind, which could still be limited in either God’s scope or God’s success, i.e. Calv or Arm basically. My Arminian teacher, C. S. Lewis, wouldn’t have had any problem in principle with them being saved in hades before the general res. He might have expected the lake of fire judgment to result in final annihilation for any impenitent sinners, though–it’s hard to be sure from his writing, but he certainly believed in final annihilation sooner or later, and probably at the ultimate coming of Christ.)
Otherwise, insofar as my position goes, the kings could have been saved before the general resurrection and lake of fire event, or after: it isn’t strictly necessary that it was after. Still, the linguistic implications in RevJohn (paralleled in Isaiah 60) point toward the kings of the earth (whether or not they’re the same kings of the earth John is talking about everywhere else in RevJohn) answering the evangelical call after the descent of the NJ, which would be after the lake of fire judgment, too.
Aaron37 wrote:
- If before, why do you say they are sinners when outside the city?
What I actually said was that they were sinners outside the city. RevJohn itself emphasizes they cannot be coming in while they still are being sinners. But their coming-in parallels the coming-in of penitent sinners in RevJohn 22. On those terms, the kings of the earth (and those who are following their lead) are answering the evangelical call of the Spirit, slaking their thirst at the river of life (flowing out of the never-closed gates), washing their robes clean in the river, and so obtaining permission to enter through the never-closed gates in order to eat from the leaves of the “log of life” which are for the healing of the nations.
There are also still impenitent sinners outside the city at the end of RevJohn (a position disputed by no one who accepts the text as authoritative in any way). It is those impenitent sinners whom John shows being actively evangelized. One way or another, this evangelization has already happened to the kings of the earth (and whoever is following them in.)
Aaron37 wrote:
- If after, how did they escape the ‘lake of fire’ judgment?
I wouldn’t say (and never have said) they “escaped” it. If they repented and had their names written into the BoL, that isn’t the same as escaping it in any sense I can think of! (Saved from out of it, yes; saved from being put into it, no.) This assumes I’ve read the contexts correctly about them having been put in at all, of course. If they repented before the lake of fire judgment, which is far from impossible (though I think the narrative and thematic contexts make more sense otherwise), then in that sense they could be said to have escaped it.
Aaron37 wrote:
and where in the bible does it record this?
It doesn’t say anywhere that they (merely) escaped the lake of fire; I would be more than a little bit shocked if it did! Otherwise, see detailed analysis.
Aaron37 wrote:
Do they enter the city or not? And how?
RevJohn itself says straight out they’re going into the city; also that no impenitent sinner, suffering the lake of fire judgment, can do so–not unless their names are written in the BoL. As to how those outside, suffering the lake of fire judgment, can obtain permission to enter, they do so the same way anyone else does: by drinking of the river of life (given freely without cost), and washing their robes in it. Again, see the detailed analysis for details if you want to critique the details.
Aaron37 wrote:
The kings and people of the New Earth come to the New Jerusalem as and when needed and required. No? ( the gates are not closed for this very reason)
That’s true enough as far as it goes, but you’re neglecting that RevJohn presents entrance into the gates as relating primarily to salvation as a result of evangelical appeal, in close proximity and connection to this verse. It isn’t only about spatial convenience (and maybe not about spatial convenience per se at all).
That remains to be seen… I do have a life outside of this forum… and as I told you (repeatedly) by pm, we’ve covered all these things before, so I’m not sure what the use is. If you’re not satisfied with Jason’s reply, I don’t see why you would be with mine. You told me by PM, “All due respect, I’m totally convinced that you believe this view solely based on Jason Pratt and others and not the word of God. You have no clue how to defend this view and to give scripture references to answer my legitimate questions and you know it.” That being the case, I’m not sure why you want me to answer the questions again, as you believe my answers will just be copies of JP’s.
But I am inclined to humor you, so, if time allows, I will attempt to answer later–mostly for the sake of any other interested parties that may be reading, since experience indicates that nothing short twisting the scriptures to fit your view of them of will satisfy you. 
(But you’ll have to be patient, I need plenty of time to consult Jason. 
)
Sonia
Sonia
Jason plays games and answers my questions with his own questions…again show me where he answers my questions with specific scripture references:
Aaron37 wrote:
- Where in scripture does it record the Rev 19:21 kings and nations repenting and being escorted out of the ‘lake of fire’ judgment?-- Answer: strictly speaking, no one specific scripture mentions all this at once. As I myself have already made abundantly clear.
In return, I challenge you to answer this simple question: where in scripture does it record the Rev 19:21 kings of the earth being thrown into the lake of fire? Scripture only, please. If your scripture reference does not explicitly reference “the kings of the earth”, you fail. If it explicitly references them but does not explicitly reference them being put “into the lake of fire”, you fail. Substitute meanings are not allowed. Adding up contexts is not allowed. This ought to be as simply easy as possible, in order to clear up what happened to the kings of the earth of Rev 19:21; and if you cannot show this with a simple pure and explicit reference to chapter and verse, you are required to disbelieve that they will ever be put (or were ever put, in terms of narrative revelation) in the lake of fire.
Since this would strictly mean you may only reference Rev 19:21 in regard to “the kings of the earth” mentioned in Rev 19:21, if that one verse does not explicitly say they are thrown into the lake of fire, you will fail, and should therefore give up your unbiblical belief (by this standard).
However, just in case Rev 19:21 doesn’t mention them being cast into the lake of fire, I will allow you to expand your restriction to any mention of “the kings of the earth”. You are thus restricted, in the New Testament, to citing one of the following verses: Matt 17:25; Rev 1:5; Rev 6:15; Rev 17:2; Rev 17:18; Rev 18:3; Rev 18:9; Rev 19:19; Rev 21:24. Which of these show “kings of the earth” being put (or thrown, I’ll allow you to have some variance in the verbiage) into “the lake of fire”? You may add any other New Testament reference to “the kings of the earth”, if you can find one, but only a reference to that phrase. Substitutes for that phrase are not allowed. If your translation turns out to be faulty as to the Greek, you will also fail (although I will allow variable grammatic suffixes for the phrase in Greek.)
You may consult the Old Testament as well, under the same restrictions.
For example: if Isiaiah 24:21 reads “And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones [that are] on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth”, it doesn’t matter if verse 22 reads, “And He shall throw all those whom He punishes into the lake of fire, from which they shall never be saved.” That would be appealing to contextual meaning, beyond what verse 21 itself explicitly says or doesn’t say. If you are allowed to do that, then I am also allowed to appeal to contextual meaning beyond what any verse does or does not explicitly say in itself–which means you will have to deal with the many details I have already provided.
(Incidentally, before you look: Isaiah 24:22 doesn’t read that, even in the KJV. It does read something pretty important, though. Also, for what it’s worth, the verses immediately subsequent to Rev 19:21 do NOT mention the kings of the earth being thrown into the lake of fire, even by context. But even if it did, by the criteria you are insisting on for me to meet, you still would fail.)
Aaron37 wrote:
2) Where in scripture does it record these kings and nations being added to the book of life? Where in scripture does it say they were found written in the book of life?
Answer: under the strict terms you are requiring, nowhere of course.
In return, I challenge you to show me where it says that the “kings of the earth” of Rev 21:24 are written into (or added into, I will allow some variance in the verbiage) “the book of life”. Substitutions of meaning are not allowed. Contextual references beyond what any verse explicitly and simply says or doesn’t say, are not allowed.
Strictly speaking, this means you cannot appeal to other verses than Rev 21:24, since that would involve drawing a contextual connection to the kings in that verse. If you do so, you fail. Just stick with Rev 21:24 and quote where it says this, please. Keep it as simple as possible.
If, for some reason, you are unable to do this, I will allow you to extend the reference set to anywhere in the Bible, under the same restrictions. No substitute meanings allowed, or you fail. No contextual appeals allowed, beyond what the verse in itself simply and purely says, or you fail. If you cannot find such a reference, you will be obligated to give up a belief that any “king of the earth” shall ever be written or otherwise added to “the book of life”.
So for example, if it happens that Rev 21:24 reads, “and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it”, and verse 25 reads, “and those who bring their glory into it shall be (or have been) written into the Lamb’s book of life”, that won’t matter–because that would be a contextual reference. If you can appeal to contextual meaning beyond what a verse simply and purely says in itself, then so can I, and you will have no excuse not to deal with what I have already discussed in detail (with chapter and verse references even!) on the topic.
(Incidentally, before you look: Rev 21:25 doesn’t read that. Verse 27 reads something pretty close, but it doesn’t even continue the sentence grammatically from verse 25. Any appeal to verse 27 would be even more of a contextual attempt than my imaginary verse 25 example. And in effect you are disavowing contextual appeals altogether, in order to avoid having to deal with my argument’s merits.)
Aaron37 wrote:
3) Where in scripture between Rev 19:21 and Rev 21:24 does it record these kings and nations repenting and getting saved and entering into the NJ and NE? Just provide scripture references only please.
See answer, and counterchallenge, to Question 1. (And to Question 2, for that matter. )
Aaron37 wrote:
4) Where in Rev 21 & 22 do you see evangelism going on? Just provide scripture references only.
Already provided with discussion of details long before (including in something you yourself quoted from me). I would answer by simply citing Rev 22:17, but since it doesn’t contain the word “evangelism” (much less verse 14), I suppose you will deny any evangelism is being talked about there. You have already refused (multiple times) to discuss the contexts of verses in chapter 22 (and barely any contexts from chapter 21), so even if you (somehow!) admit this counts as evangelism, I won’t be surprised if you continue to refuse to accept or consider any contextual discussion there. After all, that one verse certainly doesn’t spell out the whole position, does it? Therefore it cannot possibly count in favor of the whole position in any way! There, that was “simple”.
Aaron37 wrote:
5) Where in scripture does it record anyone being added to the book of life after the final judgment in Rev 20:11-15?
I will answer this question when you answer where it shows anyone being written into “the book of life” in Rev 22:14 or 17. Or Romans 11. Or anywhere in the Gospels of John or Mark or Matthew. Or anywhere in GosLuke for that matter. Or anywhere in Acts. Or anywhere in any of the epistles other than Philippians. Or anywhere in Philippians other than chapter 4. Or anywhere in RevJohn itself! (21:27 talks about people’s names having been written into the book of life, but not about people’s names being added to it as an action. The same is true for the Philippians reference, by the way, which doesn’t even reference a verb at all.)
If the reference does not feature the phrase “book of life”, you fail. Substitutions of meaning are not allowed. Implications beyond what the verse itself simply and purely says, are not allowed. Contextual appeals are not allowed. Only references to persons’ names being actively added to (or some similar active verb, I’ll allow that) “the book of life” will be acknowledged. If you cannot find such references, you will have to admit that the New Testament doesn’t ever testify to anyone being written into the book of life; and so also that the New Testament doesn’t acknowledge whatever it would mean for someone’s name to be written into the book of life–such as permission to enter the New Jerusalem. Other references to salvation are not allowed to count, only names being actively added to the book of life. If RevJohn 22:14 says that those who rinse their robes thus obtain permission to enter the city gates and eat of the log of life (which, by the way, it does), this cannot possibly count as actually having permission to enter into the New Jerusalem if it does not explicitly say that in gaining such permission their names are also added to the book of life.
If you allow other images to count as being equivalent to having names added to the book of life, then so can I. If you allow appeals to context for any reason, or even logical implications beyond what the text purely and simply says (such as Luke 10:20), then I am allowed the same prerogatives in principle. And you will have no excuse not to deal with what I have already written on that topic.
Relatedly, I challenge you on the same criteria to quote any verse of scripture saying that anything at all happens “after the lake of fire judgment”, or even “after the lake of fire”. Verses which do not include the phrase “after the lake of fire” are not allowed. Substitutions of meaning are not allowed. Contextual appeals are not allowed. Trying to draw any implications beyond what a verse simply and purely says of itself, is not allowed. If you cannot find any such reference in the Old or New Testament, you are obligated to give up any belief you may have that anything at all happens to anyone after the lake of fire judgment.
Relatedly, I challenge you on the same criteria to prove simply from a pure and simple scriptural reference that there is a “lake of fire judgment”. Only cite scripture, please. No commentary from you is allowed. If the scripture does not contain that phrase in Greek, you fail. Implications which supposedly arrive at the content of that phrase are not allowed. Contextual appeals are not allowed. Substitutions of meaning are not allowed. If you cannot show a simple scriptural affirmation that there is a “lake of fire judgment” (remember, creative translations into English will add words to RevJohn and so are not allowed), you are obligated to give up your unbiblical belief in a “lake of fire judgment” (assuming you believe such a thing and were not only hypothetically asking questions about it, which I suppose is possible.)
When you are ready to live by such simple and easy biblical belief, instead of only conveniently holding other people to such standards when they happen to believe something differently than you do (including from the scriptures), let me know. I’m sure I can come up with many (many, many) more such “challenges” that will impress you!
When, on the other hand, you are ready to discuss contexts and any other implications beyond extremely strict and simple prooftext affirmations, let me know that, too. I recommend starting with the detailed work I have already provided for consideration.
Aaron,
Anyone, I mean anyone, who presumes to know exactly what will happen to every single person on the other side of death and, more importantly, the other side of the resurrection is fooling themselves. And not just what will happen - but how it will happen.
Christ said everyone will be salted with fire. You say the fire is the end in itself. That’s presumption on your part. Pride is the first sin that leads to others because it is so deceptive. There is no such thing as Holy Dross. I think it’s quite possible for people to love their dross while calling themselves Holy.
After you read my posts with Jason answering my questions 2 different times WITHOUT USING SCRIPTURE REFERENCES…I would like an apology for calling me dishonest. You better check your computer for demons, Sonia. Sheesh! 
We all have lives outside this forum… 