matthew 10:28 1john 3:8 matthew 26:61
it would be a good argument: a purrifying fire destroys, Jesus took our place at the cross , he did the purification of sins (hebrews 1:3)
thank you for your help
unfortunately (i have just found) it is not the same word
1 John 3:8 and Matt 26:61 are both the same word (with different grammar): {lusê} and {katalusai} respectively. The second word is a compound preposition with {kata} meaning ‘down’.
The basic word {lusen} is the same underlying word behind English “lose” and “loose” through Germanic language families.
In each of those examples, the notion would be to set free in the sense of taking apart something put together, so “destroy” also works for these examples.
This word also happens to be one of the (maybe the) most popular New Testament words for saving and forgiving!
Anyway, the metaphor for Matt 26:61 would be that when the stones holding the Temple together are loosened the whole thing will come crashing down: down-loosed.
By a similar metaphor, we could still say in English (probably other languages, too) that the Devil has many “tightly knitted” plans, but God is going to “unravel” them! And that’s how “loosen” is used there in 1 John 3:8.
[Edited to update: somehow my eye wandered from source to source!]
Matt 10:28 is actually a very focused version of the same word, {apolesai}. It’s a combination of the preposition {apo} “away” or “away-from” and {ol} from which English “whole” comes and {leia} which is also a variation of {lu-}. The primary meaning is super-emphatic utter destruction. By metaphor, though, to utterly destroy something is to lose it; and so the same term came to be used as a metaphor for extreme loss. We have some very famous examples of this in the New Testament, such as the parable of the 100th sheep (out lost on the hillside) and the parable of the prodigal son (who was dead but now alive, and was lost but now is found).
Most people aren’t aware that such great examples of someone being utterly lost/destroyed and yet being saved after all actually use the same term cited elsewhere as evidence of eternal conscious torment or annihilation! Obviously, the Greek authors/translators of the New Testament didn’t think being apolesai’d was necessarily and finally hopeless!
(Update: It was the rather different word {olethros}, whole-ruin, which was used by St. Paul at 2 Thess 1:9 and 1 Cor 5:5.) Even when the word definitely means destruction by punishment, St. Paul at least thinks the destruction isn’t hopeless: he not only uses it for the coming destruction of evildoers at 2 Thess 2:9, but also to describe the extreme yet ultimately hopeful destruction of an evildoer at 1 Cor 5:5 whom Paul expects to be saved in the same Day of the Lord to come which he prophecies similarly harsh destruction for doers of injustice at 2 Thess!
So as it happens, yes both basic terms happen to have very positive and even famously hopeful uses in the New Testament as well as very threatening.
A note bump that I updated my previous reply–somehow my eye went from one term to another. I should have realized {-lesai} wasn’t derived from {ethros}. Argh! My bad. Very very sloppy of me. Clearly I need to go eat dinner. 
Still a good result, I just didn’t get there the right way. It turns out yes, Erwan, all three verses you cited do use the same term with different grammatic suffixes (of course) and different introductory prepositions.
ok so the 3 verses contain words related each other
am i right ?
thank you very much for your help
thank you Jason PRATT your post was fascinating i have read eat two or three times
Yes, the 3 verses contain words which are very much related to each other.
In superliteral English you could say the three words are “free”, “down-free” and “from-free” (with grammatic modifications on the end as appropriate for how they’re used in the sentence).
The “from-free” word (and maybe “down-free”) has a more specific meaning of destruction than “free” by itself (which can mean a bunch of different things, including salvation and forgiveness).
But the NT authors also use the “from-free” word in very certainly hopeful circumstances indicating someone can still be saved after being “from-freed”.
St. Paul also uses a somewhat different super-destruction word (“whole-ruin” which I accidentally mixed up with “from-free”) in a definitely hopeful way, indicating he expects at least some people to be saved after being super-destroyed.
That’s the sum of what I wrote, minus my mistakes. Sorry about that. 
thank you
Destruction is from-free of the bondage of sin and death. I like it
Yes, very helpful, Jason! Thanks.