Challenge! Long standing tradition wrong?

[nikolai_42]

I have often heard the statement coming from the mouths and pens of preachers and authors that Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven. It's been said in different ways, but that's the most common.

But is it true?

If Jesus did speak more about hell than He did about heaven, that's great. But if not, what good is it using what amounts to at least a twisting of scripture (and at worst a lie) to further an end that is biblical (warning men of judgment)? The means are just as important as the end - especially when it comes to the souls of men.

So, my challenge to any and all is this : can you prove (or at least show) that this proposition is supportable?

When I looked into it, I could find no support at all, but then I will concede I may be missing something. So I want to know on what basis this statement can be supported.

[Vigilante]

I may take a crack at it when I get some time, but I'll be keeping an eye on this thread, since I heard that same position only yesterday or so.

[The Midge]

Do terms such as "Eternal Life" count towards heavenly references? Are we splitting gehena (SP?) from sheol or just doing a word search on "hell" in the KJV? What about references to the Kingdom which seemed to be here and now as well as after death?

I don't think the bible says very much about what heaven/ hell are like other than that they are final destinations but not always in the physical sence like Mornington Crescent tube station might be.

It is probably too simplistic a notion to withstand sustained critique.

[Jaltus]

I believe that the metaphors of fire or fiery judgment all count towards mentions of "hell."

[James Peter]

I believe that the metaphors of fire or fiery judgment all count towards mentions of "hell."

While all mention of the Kingdom of God/Heaven count towards mentions of 'heaven'?

Compare positive encouragements to negative warnings rather than doing word counts. And supply the breakdown by gospel. I have a sneaking suspicion that you may not get the same picture in each of them.

[nikolai_42]

Anything reasonable counts towards either one. For the record, if you do a quick search for "heaven" on www.biblegateway.com, you find 141 instances (I believe that was the count) in the gospels. Then, running a search in the same 4 books on "hell", "judgment", "fire", "punishment", "torment" COMBINED (and maybe one more, I can't recall), you still wind up with "heaven" well out in front (by a count of 30-40).

My post was not simply off the cuff. I'd looked into it a couple of times and from more than one angle. I just can't see the justification for the statement. It's a categorical statement dealing with a distinct quantity ("more than") so it is clearly either true or not. I have not found, just doing word counts, ANY reasonable way in which the statement is justifiable. It always seems to come up fairly convincingly opposite to what is said. Again, maybe I need to consider more words, or maybe the word count approach isn't appropriate. Even a verse count, if I recall, is distinctly pro-heaven than it is pro-hell.

But I am very open to any evidence to the contrary. I just haven't seen it - not even attempted!

My suspicion is that those that make the statement are over zealous in their reading of scripture. They recognize the danger that judgment presents to the lost, so the scriptures that mention hell, torment, judgment, fire, repentance etc... burn in their minds and hearts as standing out. However, since they see little value in trying to "attract" men to heaven, those passages that deal with "heaven" are somehow marginalized. For example, in the Beatitudes, Jesus speaks about the Kingdom of heaven belonging to the poor in spirit. The poor in spirit may recognize the terror of judgment more than the blessing of heaven (and thus feel unworthy), but at the same time, the poor in spirit may be those that have gone beyond mere fear of judgment to seeking to please God. To them, that verse is speaking of glory, joy, pleasures forevermore and the satisfaction of being satisfied with nothing less than doing the Father's will! To the one who is simply looking for "hell", that verse will not speak to them of heaven.

I am reminded of the passage in Jude that should cause us to recognize that the "fire and brimstone" approach doesn't apply to everyone :

Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
And of some have compassion, making a difference:
And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Jude 21-23

While the "fear" approach is valid, at the same time using a questionable (indefensible?) statement to further that end seems to me to violate the spirit of the above passage and "unbalance" the gospel presentation.

But, yes, any reasonable terms are certainly valid. The only requirement I have of any support is that it be reasonable.

[nikolai_42]

While all mention of the Kingdom of God/Heaven count towards mentions of 'heaven'?

Compare positive encouragements to negative warnings rather than doing word counts. And supply the breakdown by gospel. I have a sneaking suspicion that you may not get the same picture in each of them.

I'm all ears. I have a sneaking suspicion that that approach will bring into question the broad brush of characterizing everything positive as "heaven" and everything negative as "hell". Does the believer go to hell? Granted this is going outside the gospels, but once the debate comes up, one will have to contend with such proof texts :

For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
I Corinthians 3:11-15

In the end, it may well be that we will have to settle for something like "Jesus spoke more about judgment than He did about reward". That I could see.

[Jaltus]

While all mention of the Kingdom of God/Heaven count towards mentions of 'heaven'?

Compare positive encouragements to negative warnings rather than doing word counts. And supply the breakdown by gospel. I have a sneaking suspicion that you may not get the same picture in each of them.

Considering that the referant of KoG/H is not heaven, that would be misleading.

[Vigilante]

I only hear that reasoning used in regards ONLY to the words of Jesus. Word counts don't work unless you limit to the "red text", as it were.

I hear people say "Jesus spoke more about Hell then Heaven", not, "the gospels speak more". Or the NT. But maybe others have heard different?

Also Nikolai I don't think you are giving theologians and scholars enough credit, I think they have more reason to make this claim then wishful thinking and projection.


Cheers

[nikolai_42]

I only hear that reasoning used in regards ONLY to the words of Jesus. Word counts don't work unless you limit to the "red text", as it were.

I hear people say "Jesus spoke more about Hell then Heaven", not, "the gospels speak more". Or the NT. But maybe others have heard different?

Yes. That's what I have done. I have checked Jesus' words. The first search I remember doing was the one I described. Just generally the gospels (comparing "heaven" and "hell") and hell just didn't even register as compared with heaven. I then narrowed it down, trying to eliminate repetition within the gospels. Even if you do that with "heaven" and not "hell", you still find "heaven" being by far the more numerous. Then I made sure I was using Jesus' words. That didn't change a whole lot. Most of the time these words are used they are used by Jesus. Then I realized that there were different ways of expressing the same thing. While I don't have the results with me, I remember distinctly my conviction that the statement wasn't standing up to scrutiny started to strengthen.

But then there is the issue of verse count as opposed to word count. And then on a less concrete level, topics. At that point, you get so far into the subjective that the statement, in my view, loses its weight. That is to say - such a statement is used, inevitably, in a message that tries to convince men thoroughly of the coming judgment, its severity and hell's importance. But the means used to arrive at the conclusion, it seems to me, take into consideration things that are sufficiently vague (or at least indirect) as to their connection to hell, that the speaker really has to make a generalization so as to avoid the difficulty in defending the statement. But the assertion seems valid enough that it becomes "safe" to assert without risking challenge. I'm not suggesting that the theologian or pastor is intentionally trying to pull one over on anyone - but instead that in his zeal to get to the point and convince the hearer, he is taking shortcuts that wind up not being entirely and fully true. Instead, they are handy summarizations of a broad range of classes of statements that, for the purposes of a single topic, get lumped into one. While this may seem acceptable, it is this, I believe, that contributes to deviations from scripture that eventually result in false doctrine. In short, the Word of God needs not to be added to or taken away from or even recast. It is, itself, quick and powerful. Sharper than any two-edged sword and, if given its own latitude, will accomplish the purpose for which God sent it.

Basically, I'm saying that generalizations of scripture, if not explicitly supported in some way, are dangerous. I believe this to be one such generalization.

Also Nikolai I don't think you are giving theologians and scholars enough credit, I think they have more reason to make this claim then wishful thinking and projection.

Cheers

I have tried to be as transparent as possible and not deal with any individuals or their motives. Paul was glad when the Bereans didn't believe him blindly but instead searched the scriptures to see if the things he told them were so. It wasn't an issue of personality (though Paul wouldn't argue so, many today would be inclined to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, I think - present company included!) or Paul would have been offended or someone may have said about him something similar to what you have said.

This is not an attack, not intended as being malicious, nor do I find your concerns unfounded. I am simply concerned that the word, as taught, be the Word as given. My strong impression - bordering on a conviction - is that it is not being done in this instance.

I will, however, undertake to do some different (more time consuming) searches.

[James Peter]

Considering that the referant of KoG/H is not heaven, that would be misleading.

But then again not every mention of judgement is a mention of hell either. In fact I'd argue that the Kingdom of God has continuity between earth and heaven and so the two are at least linked while many instances of judgement have nothing to do with an eternal hellfire and brimstone place of eternal suffering.

[James Peter]

Also Nikolai I don't think you are giving theologians and scholars enough credit, I think they have more reason to make this claim then wishful thinking and projection.

You won't see many scholars making the claim. You also won't see that many preachers doing it, outside a certain subsect of christianity at any rate.

Anyway look at the numbers...

In Mark Jesus mentions Hell (Gehenna) once (three occurances in the same pericope - the end of Mk 9).

In Matthew Jesus mentions Hell on what should probably considered four seperate occassions.

In Luke Hell comes up just once again while in John you never see the word Hell.

Gehenna just isn't a common theme for Jesus. Sure, a quick survey like that neglects things like 'the outer dark' but once again that language is limited to Matthew. Three of the Four gospels focus heavily on good rather than punishment. The fourth is reasonably balanced... If you want to support the claim that Jesus focused on hell then substantiate it.

[spitndirt]

I have often heard the statement coming from the mouths and pens of preachers and authors that Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven. It's been said in different ways, but that's the most common.

But is it true?

If Jesus did speak more about hell than He did about heaven, that's great. But if not, what good is it using what amounts to at least a twisting of scripture (and at worst a lie) to further an end that is biblical (warning men of judgment)? The means are just as important as the end - especially when it comes to the souls of men.

So, my challenge to any and all is this : can you prove (or at least show) that this proposition is supportable?

When I looked into it, I could find no support at all, but then I will concede I may be missing something. So I want to know on what basis this statement can be supported.

Jesus didn't speak about 'hell' at all actually - not as in 'eternal torment' anyway. He spoke of hades, or the grave. He spoke of gehenna and tartarus (temporal judgments for living in unbelief). He spoke of outer darkness (an end of the age judgment) and final destruction (lake of fire judgment)......but NEVER did He speak of a priest's and/or a preacher's hell.

peace

[Flux]

I have often heard the statement coming from the mouths and pens of preachers and authors that Jesus spoke more about hell than He did about heaven. It's been said in different ways, but that's the most common.

But is it true?

Rather than trying to answer your question, I will ask a few rhetorical questions regarding issues I think are more important...

• What did Jesus refer to by concepts of "the Kingdom of heaven" and "eternal life"?
• What did he refer to by terms like "Gehenna", "Hades", "outer darkness" and the concept of final judgment?
• And perhaps the trickiest question: what was Jesus' purpose and point in using this kind of language?

These sort of questions, I think, are more important that the ratio of his attention given to "heaven" and "hell". And the answers, I suggest, are more difficult to find, because I think Jesus and his contemporaries are unlikely to have thought about "heaven" and "hell" in the same way modern Westerners do.

[Vigilante]

Well here's the way I see it then, there are only 3 options:

1) Jesus spoke more about Heaven.
2) Jesus spoke more about Hell.
3) Jesus spoke about each exactly equally.

Problem 1) Define Heaven.
Problem 2) Define Hell.
Problem 3) Define what "speak about" means.

Consideration 1) When compair what a person speaks "about", a simple word count is inacurate. I could speak about any two things with exactly 80 words each, but maybe I use the actual subject word more then an equal number of times.

Consideration 2) Speaking "about" things does not equal that one subject word. In other words, you can have a whole sentence, maybe 11 words, speaking "about" something, without mentioning what that is directly, because it's in context of the passage or sentence before.

In summary, I think EVERY means to sort this via computer searches is NOT going to work. A human mind needs to read every word of Jesus and take into consideration how many words, or even how many sentences, are relating to the "subject" of Heaven or Hell. Not simply how many times a given word or two happens to be said directly.

So then, with a couple hours, some willing soul could read through all the red text and properly judge how much "time" (i.e. words or sentences) was spent on a given subject by Jesus.

This is the only proper way to judge I think. Enter computers, enter problems.