How do believers in eternal conscious separation/torment reconcile their belief with Jesus' words at Matthew 10:39?

It's just a symbolisation of the cycle of manifesting your own depression and joy. You also need to note that in the era this was written to live was existing not living. One person paid for the sins of the many, which Roman Legionnaires were bound by. They'd kill 1 of 10 whether they'd done right or wrong because they knew one would sin eventually and everyone suffers for that.

The philosophy behind it is that you can only ever truly experience joy when there is an impending doom bigger than any single person waiting to happen because it's sincere and real. So if you find your life, you'll inherently be in a position where you are out of a doom scenario (which is where you want to be) but to lose it is to still be in it (where you don't want to be).

So for any man who finds his life is in a position to cause suffering, it would seem Matthew believes every man does. And for any man that loses it is suffering from blindness and must find himself to become his reciprocal. Ultimately its turmoil between being oppressed and staying oppressed for sincere reasons, compared to being in a position of power where you can and do become corrupt. There's truth in that if you look at every historical event, ever.

Two part answer, the first addresses the nature of this question and tone in which it is asked/defended. The second is the answer I have to the question, and then I have some comments.

About the Question: Your question asks how do such believers reconcile it. Not how do such believers prove beyond your doubts that they are right and you are wrong.

From your responses, you seem to be hostile to the other interpretations or evidence that counter your point. If you refuse to accept as admissible their premises by which they reach their logical conclusion, then you are not being honest in your debate.

Logical arguments are ones that, assuming the premises are true, would naturally follow to the conclusion. One can be perfectly logically sound, but have a general lack of understanding of which premises actually apply to the situation, and thus be logical but still wrong.

My Answer: No passage can be taken by itself. All scripture informs the rest of scripture. So cherry picking a passage and applying one set of definitions to critical words is how one twists the scripture to their own purposes.

You attempt to define life in this context as physical life, but through out scripture there are references to the physical and the spiritual, and from my Jewish friends, God is a fan of puns.

So let us first focus on Life and life. Life being the spiritual life, and life being the physical life. Physical life is the animation of the clay shell we are have that our soul/spirit resides in or interfaces with to experience the physical realm. Spiritual life is the soul/spirit being in communion with God. When Adam sinned, he instantly died spiritually, and eventually died physically. When we are born, we are born sinners, we are born spiritually dead. So if we seek to deny communion with Christ, deny our association with Him, or deny His Lordship, then we persist in our spiritual death. But while we still have physical life, before the first death (mortal death), we have the ability to, thru Him, bring life to our soul/spirit (its kind of like being on life support, but if life doesn't enter before life support is turned off, there is no recovery). Likewise, if we are willing to lay down our physical life, our temporary mortal treasures, etc. for Him, which we can only truly do if we are following Him and empowered by His Spirit, then His Spirit will preserve our spirit. And when all are reanimated for judgment, only those preserved will have the Spirit and Breath of God, while those who are damned will only have their own reanimated breath. They will have the second death, the eternal separation from God. they will no longer even receive the common blessings ( the rain falls on the just and the unjust - here on the mortal coil, but not in the immortal).

About My Answer This is how it is reconciled to me. I see no contradiction. I cannot prove to you in any way that will satisfy you. But I need not prove it. This is how I reconcile it. Akin to stating my favorite color is blue, until I change my own mind, that is a fact, and no argument from you would change that fact. This is how I and others reconcile it. there maybe be other ways to reconcile it, some may or may not suit your fancy. but this is like asking how does one put their socks on in the morning, left foot first, right foot first, roll them and unroll them or just rip and pull, or skip it entirely. There is no right answer to that.

Alternative I have no reason to argue with one who has a different interpretation of Scripture, so long as core still points to Christ as both necessary and sufficient. Or when someone's arguments tear at the validity of Scripture or the Unity of the Body. So, as long as an opinion is logically sound, and based on Scripture, either in plain reading or in culturally understood reading of the age in which it was written, then I find that acceptable and we can have polite discussion about our differences. If however, one has to create their own definitions or perform some convoluted and confusing presentation to obscure (or ignore other informative elements of Scripture) then I won't settle on it being viable unless and until that interpretation can be explained without confusion such that even the least could understand it as viable.

I would answer that holding the OP's interpretation of what life means in a consistent fashion rules out the possibility of eternal life being received by anyone who has not been martyred. I would also answer that even OP does not maintain such consistency.

OP consistently defines life in this verse as physical life and only physical life and this is made abundantly clear in the Addendum 1 section in particular.

Here is the verse (Matthew 10:39) with parenthetical insertions consistent with OP's definition of life as well as complimentary information from parallel verses (Matthew 16:25, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, Luke 17:33, John 12:25):

Whoever finds (wants to save; tries to save; loves) his life (physical life) will lose it (his physical life), and whoever loses (hates) his life (physical life)(in this world) for my sake (and for the gospel) will find (save; preserve; keep) it (his physical life)(for eternal life).

Since OP's question insists that consistency of definition be maintained we have Jesus saying that in order to "find" physical life which lasts for eternity one must lose physical life in the here and now.

Addendum 1 part 1 is abundantly clear that everyone, regardless of what they do, will physically die and so something more must be meant for Jesus' words to be more than "redundant, insignificant, trivial, and have no application".

Addendum 1 part 2 is confusing when consistency is expected: 1) "Jesus is telling His disciples that if they preserve their life in this age" They cannot do so, everyone dies 2) "If we choose to preserve our lives temporarily in this age at the expense of being a follower of Christ(the context is about being a disciple of Christ and picking up your cross)" This context defines life as discipleship rather than physical life 3) "However, if we lose our lives temporarily in this age" Again "lose our lives" changes meaning from "die physically" to "maintain discipleship"

If "loses his life for my sake" merely means physical death then everyone ultimately "finds" eternal physical life.

If "loses his life for my sake" means physical death that is somewhat more than what everyone experiences whether righteous or unrighteous then one must physically die in a special way to ultimately "find" eternal physical life. Even the Apostle John is disqualified here since he apparently physically died normally at an old age.

If OP is correct in the Addendum that endurance in discipleship is contextually what is in view (I believe this to be correct) then "life" takes on a meaning which is significantly different from the "physical life" that is insisted upon in the earlier body of the question.

Matthew 16:24-25 brings clarity and definition:

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. 

The emboldened are, contextually, synonyms and show us that life, true and eternal life, is much more than mere physicality; in fact, it transcends physicality. If we plug this biblical definition back into Matthew 10:39 we have:

He that findeth his life (refuses to deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me) shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake (denies himself, and takes up his cross, and follows me) shall find it.

Ah, but what is this it that is either found or lost at the ending of each half of this verse? Does not it reference back to life? Denying self, taking up the cross, and following does not plug in there easily, does it? - This is what I imagine the doubter saying :-)

Well, the contrast in the verse is between two "different" lives and this is critical. Denying self, taking up the cross, and following Christ is His life; it is given as for His sake. Refusing to do the same is my life; it is for my sake.

If you cling to your life you will lose it. If you release your life and cling to His life you will find it. Physicality is only in view here insofar as that is the sphere within which our lives/psuche currently manifest.

Premise 2 surreptitiously slips in a false dichotomy.

Spirit Realm Investigator has offered critiques of the several of the other premises; I think good points are raised there. I'll focus my post principally on premise 2.

Premise 2

Jesus says that those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Him and the gospel will lose them in the age to come.

Jesus does not say this.

I'll break the verse down as follows:

Whoever finds his life [psuche reference A] will lose it [psuche reference B], and whoever loses his life [psuche reference C] for My sake will find it [psuche reference D].

The thought behind premise 2 is presented in paragraph form in the paragraphs "what", "1", and "2" under "Addendum 1". The minimum criteria needed to defeat a dichotomy is to show that at least 3 possibilities exist:

1. As stated in the OP, psuche references A-D could all just be referring to the life of the body in mortality, which would make this statement either a) bland or b) an argument for reincarnation (I don't believe in reincarnation).

2. As stated in the OP, psuche references A-D could all be referring to the life of the body, with A&C focused on here and B&D focused on hereafter.

3. Psuche references A-D are not all references to the life of the body. A&C focus narrowly on physical life within the confines of this world, and B&D focus on spiritual life freed from those bounds, in eternity. A&C are bound by time. B&D are not.

• This would in fact reinforce the message of the passage: this life is brief, the next life is not. So either have fun in this life and regret it forever, or endure brief negativity here and get positive results that never end. Because of the unending nature of the next life, it's worth the sacrifices here!
• The underlying message here is ultimately about priorities. A&C refer to the life actions/priorities chosen in mortality, and B&D focus on their results in the life hereafter. There is no reason, save a priori assumption, to demand that a statement clearly focused on the next life must be strictly physical in nature.

This does not disprove annhilationism (nor am I seeking to do so in this post); this merely shows that there are more than 2 possibilities. Even if we can conceive of an annihilationist interpretation of option 3 above, option 3 leaves open a non-annihilationist interpretation as well.

Other possible interpretations exist; but with 3 possibilities provided, the dichotomy is defeated. If B&D do not refer strictly to the life of the body, premise 2 falls.

Other Critiques

You cannot simultaneously have your life and lose it

You can. Paul did. (See Romans 6:2-11)

--

What does Jesus mean by "finding your life" in the first part of verse 39? He means preserving your physical life, correct?

We do not have to guess; Matthew tells us when he repeats this idea in 16:25

Just prior he defines "losing your life" in the present:

24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

Just after he defines "saving your life" in the present:

26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Losing our life in the present means "taking up our cross", whether that means sacrificing our very lives or sacrificing something else (as discussed by Paul in Romans 6), it entails making sacrifices for the cause of Christ.

Saving our life in the present means gaining/prioritizing the things of the world. A modern expression conveying a similar idea is "all the money in the world couldn't get me to do that..." - in other words, there's nothing the world is offering that is better, so Jesus counsels us not to prioritize what the world is offering over what He can give (see also Matt. 6:19-21).

This pericope is not a discourse on the nature of eternity; it is a warning/promise about priorities.

--

Psuche (ψυχή)

I have written more extensively about the different meanings of the word psuche here - it's a term with...to borrow SRI's phrase that he borrowed from me =)...broad semantic range.

Psuche can certainly mean life. But if we are appealing to the unanimity (or at least the very large super-majority) of English translators to tell us what "psuche" means in this pericope, it's worth returning to Matthew 16:

25 For whosoever will save his life (psuche) shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life (psuche) for my sake shall find it.

26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul (psuche)? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul (psuche)?

The same Greek word stands behind all 4--and the majority of English translators render two of the psuche's as "life" and two of the psuche's as "soul". The translators clearly realize there's more going on in this passage than a mere discussion of the life of the physical body.

--

Life/consciousness

I saw hints of a conflation between life & consciousness in the OP, but I will grant such an assumption was never explicitly stated. Along these lines I do, however, find this definition of "to kill" inadequate (because I'm not a mortalist):

to "kill", that is, deprive/divest someone of the condition or quality that distinguishes a functional, animate being from an inanimate, inert object

I believe when a person physically dies, part of their being remains functional & animate.

--

Defining Life

All the cited dictionary definitions explain life, at least in part, by contrasting it with what it's not: dead. Thus, if "dead" can carry multiple meanings, so can "life" or "alive".

My view that:

• physical life is the union of body & spirit
• physical death is the separation of body & spirit
• spiritual life is communion with God
• spiritual death is separation from God

...is described in more posts on this site & on BHSE than I care to list at the moment. I do not use the terms "immortality" and "eternal life" as synonyms. As used here (and elsewhere), by immortality I mean living forever, and by eternal life I mean a life that is both endless in duration AND godlike in quality.

--

Conclusion

The OP sought a direct response to this question:

How do believers in eternal conscious separation/torment reconcile their belief with Jesus' words at Matthew 10:39?

I believe Jesus is instructing His followers that they will need to make sacrifices for His name if they are to truly be His disciples. To show them why it is worth it, He contrasts the brevity of this life with the endless nature of eternity. My annotations:

Whoever finds his psuche [prioritizes/defines his life by the things of the world or that which is temporary]

will lose it (his psuche)[he will permanently lose both that by which he defined his life AND the opportunity for eternal life] ,

and whoever loses his life for My sake [sacrifices the things of this world, possibly including one's mortal life, but also time, energy, competing priorities, etc. Defines one's life by God's big picture, not the world's myopic picture]

will find it [will have a more fulfilling post-mortal life, including receipt of eternal life]

The standard this post needs to meet is not that an alternative interpretation is true, but that an alternative interpretation is possible. I believe that has been accomplished. My belief in the eternal nature of the soul is not based on this passage, but it is consistent with this passage.

Rebuttal

Addendum 4 in the OP is a response to this post; I will respond to it here.

Which makes interpretation #3 impossible(unless you would like to change the fundamental rules of the Greek and English language)

I readily acknowledge that the OP, who regularly edits & improves my prose, has a sharper eye for editing written English than I do. But if we're interested in the meaning of a Greek text, English grammar is irrelevant.

Greek discussion

Greek is a language capable of being concise and compressed (inflection gives a great deal of syntactic flexibility).

Some useful New Testament examples of compressed passages include: Luke 2:2, John 5:36, 1 Cor. 1:25, and the notoriously puzzling (for first year Greek students) passage found in Luke 6:45a:

English

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil...

Greek

ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ τῆς καρδίας προφέρει τὸ ἀγαθόν, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ προφέρει τὸ πονηρόν...

I've bolded in English the words that are not found in the Greek text; they are all implied by reference to antecedents. In the last 7 words quoted, "evil" is said three times--is this the same evil each time? No, it's 3 different kinds of evil (evil man, evil treasure of the heart, actions/choices which are evil).

What about the treasure of the heart? It's stated explicitly once and referenced as an antecedent once. Does that mean the same treasure is referred to both times? No, in fact they are opposites.

The word "evil" is used 3 times in one breath to mean 3 different things--in each case the antecedent is clear from the grammar, but the subsequent is not the "same thing" as its antecedent--it's the opposite. The genitive-masculine-singular πονηροῦ clearly refers to "treasure" mentioned earlier in the verse. But it's not the same treasure! It's referring to treasure, not that treasure.

See further discussion of compressed Greek phrases in Nigel Turner's Grammatical Insights into the New Testament pp. 23-24.

Matt. 10:39 is another such compressed passage; Jesus is characteristically concise in this passage, as in so many of His memorable sayings. There is no reason why αὐτός ("it", a reference to psuche) must refer to exactly the same sense or application of psuche previously mentioned--this would be to apply an overly literal word-for-word translation (frequently a bad idea in translation) that is neither required by grammar nor context. (the antecedent of αὐτός is undoubtedly ψυχή, but the Greek language does not behave strictly as described in Addendum 4).

An English idiom may help illustrate this point further: a stitch in time saves nine. Nine what? Even without the aid of Greek inflection, we know this means 9 stitches. But is it a repeated reference to the same stitch over and over again? No, the preventative stitch prevents a more serious tear that will require more & different stitches. The antecedent is "stitch", not that stitch.

In fact, both my proposed interpretation of this passage, and that given in option 2 by the OP, require that αὐτός does not refer to exactly the same sense or application of psuche as just previously mentioned. Otherwise, this passage would literally be promising that when those who follow Jesus die (the end of the physical body's mortal life , He will raise them from the dead to continue the very same life they had before--a life which was both physical & mortal. This is clearly contradicted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15--the resurrection offers a life that is distinct and more glorious than the life before (and while it is certainly physical, it is not mortal). Even on the OP's interpretation, this is not the same psuche.

Thus the OP & I do not disagree that there's a difference between psuche reference A & psuche reference B, rather, we disagree about what that difference is.

When the Bible conveys the message that the wicked will die and the righteous will live (as it does here and in many other places), there is usually more to "life" intended than just physical life...since faithful Christians do die all the time.

The essentials of the statement could also be rendered: "he who gains life will lose life...he who loses life will gain life." Or, to more further acknowledge the nuance of the Greek "he who gains psuche will lose psuche...he who loses psuche will gain psuche." (it isn't translated into English that way because 1) it sounds terrible & 2) it's quite intelligible in English without the redundancy of words. An honest translator will generally only add words to a compressed phrase if it's essential to understand it--it's a judgement call, and endless debates about the meaning of Luke 2:2 suggests we wouldn't all make the same judgement call)

The third "psuche" option I offered to defeat the false dichotomy remains viable.

--

Play on words

For those who contend that this sounds like a play on words, and surely Jesus would never use a play on words, George Howard's work here may be of value. Jesus is a master of word-play and His teachings employ it over & over & over again. A short, pithy saying like Matt. 10:39 is all the more effective & memorable because psuche carries multiple meanings, not in spite of it.

--

Hebrew discussion

To those who consider reliable the remnants of Matthew in Hebrew preserved by Shem Tob, George Howard's careful translation of the Hebrew of Matt. 16:25 may be interesting:

Everyone who wishes to save his soul will lose it for my sake, and he who loses his life in this world for my sake will save his soul for the life of the world to come

How do believers in eternal conscious separation/torment reconcile their belief with Jesus' words at Matthew 10:39:-

Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

"Whoever finds his life will lose it" - means whoever finds a life of pleasure/satisfaction, etc without Christ being their Lord and Saviour will lose everything and worse when they die and at the Great Day of Judgement.

But "Whoever loses his life for my sake" does not only mean martyrs. It means whoever gives up his own earthly ambitions, whoever gives up the determination to be the king of his own life and submits to King Jesus, putting his trust in our Lord Jesus, giving his life to Him, and submitting to His authority to be ruled by His Word and will, will gain the blessing of true eternal life in Heaven.

It is not, then, about losing the existence of life per se that is being referred to but rather the quality of life that is being gained or lost.

If anyone finds "a good quality of life" without Christ they will soon enough lose that quality of life.

If anyone gives up trying to have - or even, in their own opinion, having - a Christ-less good quality of life for Christ they will gain the greatest quality of life both here and in eternity.

They will gain a real life here on earth.. a life worth living. So that outwardly it might be a life of persecution, but inwardly it has the smile of God, and is a life of rejoicing. As an example, some of the apostles, when they were persecuted by the Sanhedrin, they rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for His name (Acts 5:41).

There are terms and conditions to following Christ for salvation:

I add a long quote from Matthew Henry's Commentary (you decide if it materially differs from what I have written!):

"The terms are, that we must prefer Christ:-

First, Above our nearest and dearest relations; father or mother, son or daughter. Between these relations, because there is little room left for envy, there is commonly more room for love, and, therefore, these are instanced, as relations which are most likely to affect us. Children must love their parents, and parents must love their children; but if they love them better than Christ, they are unworthy of him. As we must not be deterred from Christ by the hatred of our relations which he spoke of (v. 21, 35, 36), so we must not be drawn from him, by their love. Christians must be as Levi, who said to his father, I have not seen him, Deut. 33:9.

Secondly, above our ease and safety. We must take up our cross and follow him, else we are not worthy of him. Here observe, 1. They who would follow Christ, must expect their cross and take it up. 2. In taking up the cross, we must follow Christ's example, and bear it as he did. 3. It is a great encouragement to us, when we meet with crosses, that in bearing them we follow Christ, who has showed us the way; and that if we follow him faithfully, he will lead us through sufferings like him, to glory with him.

Thirdly, above life itself, v. 39. He that finds his life shall lose it; he that thinks he had found it when he has saved it, and kept it, by denying Christ, shall lose it in an eternal death; but he that loses his life for Christ's sake, that will part with it rather than deny Christ, shall find it, to his unspeakable advantage, an eternal life. They are best prepared for the life to come, that sit most loose to this present life.

On eternal punishment

If we want to know if the Bible teaches there is a conscious eternal punishment then we should look at other passages, not just ones which we can try to squeeze annihilation out of.

So Mark 9:44 speaks of hell

where their worm dies not and the fire is not quenched which phrase is taken from Isaiah 66:24.

or you can just read a bit further on from Matthew 10:39 to Matthew 13:41-42 :-

The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And there is Luke 16:19-31, the parable of the Rich Fool who wanted Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and come to him to cool his tongue.

In the days of the New Testament the Pharisees and the people generally (except the Sadducees) believed in conscious, eternal punishment - our Lord would have been very clear to put them right if there is no conscious, eternal punishment.

Whoever finds his life (in this life) shall, at the end of this life, lose his life. But he shall be raised from the dead to give an account.

Once judged, he shall be assigned to the lake of fire, where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

Whosoever loses his life for Christ's sake, shall suffer persecution, affliction, scorn, temptation and some have even wandered in goatskins, dwelling in caves or even being torn asunder.

But, once raised from the dead, they shall live for ever, in new heavens and a new earth, in the presence of Christ and the angels.

I find no contradiction in these words in comparison to the text quoted above.

Addressing the deductive argument

P1: The doctrine of eternal conscious torment/separation asserts that all of the unrighteous are resurrected in immortal bodies and will have physical life forever in the age to come.

Premise 1 is already controversial for several reasons:

• What is formally meant by "physical life"? Is there any official ECT/ECS source that uses this expression? If so, how do they define it?
• What is meant by "immortal body"? Does any official ECT/ECS source use this expression? If so, how do they define it?

If I had to write my own (non-official) version of P1, it would be something like this:

P1: ECT/ECS asserts that all of the unrighteous are resurrected in bodies that can withstand eternal punishment/separation and will be conscious of their punishment forever in the age to come.

P2: Jesus says that those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Him and the gospel will lose them in the age to come.

Again, I don't buy this premise. I'm not convinced that Jesus is necessarily using the concept of "physical life" (whatever that means).

In the Greek the word of interest is ψυχή (psuché). What did Jesus mean to say when he used the word ψυχή? I don't know. We don't have Jesus here to interview him and know what exactly he meant.

So we are only left to guess (educated guesses) and at best make inferences to the best explanation (which are NOT formal proofs by the way).

A Greek Lexicon may be useful here, to get an idea of what Jesus might have wanted to say, but even then, this is prone to error and not an absolute proof.

For instance, https://biblehub.com/greek/5590.htm offers multiple candidate definitions. I'll quote Strong's Concordance as an example:

psuché: breath, the soul
Original Word: ψυχή, ῆς, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: psuché
Phonetic Spelling: (psoo-khay')
Definition: breath, the soul
Usage: (a) the vital breath, breath of life, (b) the human soul, (c) the soul as the seat of affections and will, (d) the self, (e) a human person, an individual.

Thus, an alternative plausible version of premise 2 could be:

P2: Jesus says that those who keep their human soul safe in this age at the expense of Him and the gospel will not keep their human soul safe in the age to come (because of the terrible eternal punishment/separation they will experience).

P3: Those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel are unrighteous.

Again, I don't buy the "physical life" interpretation. Alternative wording:

P3: Those who keep their human soul safe in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel are unrighteous.

Otherwise, I agree with this premise.

P4: It is logically impossible to have something forever and also lose it simultaneously.

I agree.

P5: Every declarative statement made by Jesus that is not symbolic or allegorical is literally true.

This premise sounds somewhat reasonable(?), but it also sounds like a blanket statement prone to be false because of unforeseen counterexamples (typical when one makes blanket, universal claims). It also faces the issue of identifying when a given verse is not symbolic nor allegorical. It also faces the issue of identifying the literal meaning of ambiguous words or expressions, such as psuche, which has a broad semantic range.

In short, this premise sounds too universal, risky, speculative, and hard to verify in practice. Since no conclusive evidence is provided in support of this premise, I see no compelling reason to concede it.

P6: When the truth value of two propositions being 1 creates a logical impossibility, the propositions contradict each other and are irreconcilable.

Agreed.

P7: If two propositions contradict each other and are irreconcilable, at least one of them must be false.

Agreed.

C1: According to ECT/ECS, those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel will be resurrected immortal and have physical life forever in the age to come(follows deductively from premises 1 and 3).

Again, I don't buy the "physical life" interpretation (whatever that means). An alternative version of C1:

C1: According to ECT/ECS, those who keep their human soul safe in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel are resurrected in bodies that can withstand eternal punishment/separation and will be conscious of their punishment forever in the age to come (from P1 & P3).

C2: According to both ECT/ECS and Jesus' words, those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel will be resurrected immortal and have physical life forever in the age to come and will also lose their physical life in the age to come(follows deductively from premise 2 and conclusion 1).

Again, I don't buy the "physical life" interpretation (whatever that means). An alternative version of C2:

C2: According to ECT/ECS, those who keep their human soul safe in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel are resurrected in bodies that can withstand eternal punishment/separation and will be conscious of their punishment forever in the age to come (from C1) AND will NOT keep their human soul safe in the age to come (from P2).

Notice there is no contradiction.

C3: It is logically impossible that those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel will be resurrected immortal and have physical life forever in the age to come and will also lose their physical life in the age to come(follows deductively from premise 4).

I agree, but this is irrelevant when different versions of the disputable premises are considered.

C4: The proposition that those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel will be resurrected immortal and have physical life forever in the age to come and the proposition that those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel will lose their physical life in the age to come contradict each other and are irreconcilable and at least one of them must be false(follows deductively from premises 6 and 7, and conclusion 3).

I agree, but this is irrelevant when different versions of the disputable premises are considered.

C5: The proposition that those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel will lose their physical life in the age to come is true(follows deductively from premises 2 and 5).

This deduction is incorrect. Premise 5 says "literally true", not just "true". Moreover, you need to prove first that Matthew 10:39 does not contain neither symbolic nor figurative language. And of course, this relies on premise 5 being true, which might not be the case (see feedback on premise 5 above).

C6: The proposition that those who preserve their physical lives in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel will be resurrected immortal and have physical life forever in the age to come is false(follows deductively from conclusions 4 and 5).

I agree with the logical validity of this deduction, but the soundness relies on C5 being true, which is on shaky ground (see feedback above), and C4 being true, which is irrelevant when different versions of the disputable premises are considered.

C7: The doctrine of eternal conscious torment/separation is false(follows deductively from conclusions 1 and 6).

On shaky ground and irrelevant when different versions of the disputable premises are considered.

Alternative interpretations of Matthew 10:39

My personal attempt (consistent with ECT/ECS)

If you are willing to endanger the safety of your human soul (i.e. if you are willing to go through terrible experiences, even the destruction of your body) for Christ's sake in this age, you will keep your human soul eternally safe in the age to come.

On the other hand, if you keep your human soul safe in this age at the expense of Christ and the gospel, you will NOT keep your human soul safe in the age to come (because of the terrible eternal punishment/separation you will experience).

Meyer's NT Commentary (consistent with ECT/ECS)

Matthew 10:39. Ψυχήν and αὐτήν have no other meaning than that of soul (Matthew 2:20, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 9:28); but the point lies in the reference of the finding and losing not being the same in the first as in the second half of the verse. “Whoever will have found his soul (by a saving of his life in this world through denying me in those times when life is endangered), will lose it (namely, through the ἀπώλεια, Matthew 7:13, the eternal death at the second coming; comp. Luke 9:24 f.); and whoever will have lost his soul (through the loss of his life in this world in persecution, through an act of self-sacrifice), will find it” (at the resurrection to the eternal ζωή); σωθήσεται, Matthew 10:22. For ἀπόλλ. ψυχήν, comp. Eur. Hec. 21; Anth. Pal. vii. 272. 2. The finding in the first half, accordingly, denotes the saving of the ψυχή, when to all appearance hopelessly endangered from temporal death; while, in the second, it denotes the saving of the ψυχή after it has actually succumbed to death. The former is a finding that issues in eternal death; the latter, one that conducts to eternal life.

Your argument that writhing in the lake of fire constitutes life is your flawed premise. That's the second death.

That may not comport with your preconception of 'life'; that is, any conscious state, but it fits a natural reading of Rev 20, which has to be examined for any discussion of hell.

When you lose your life, you go to the lake of fire, the second death, which, in both the colloquial idiom and the biblical sense, is no life at all.

The second time you ask 'agreed?', I say, "no, that's not a biblical conception of what life is, that's your secular definition based on consciousness".

Revelation 20:10,14 CSB The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet are, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever....[14] Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.