Hell, you say?

[NormATive]

In another thread in Unorthodox Theology, the idea of Universal Salvation is being debated. The opponents of Universal Salvation contend that if one doesn't "believe," one is tossed into a Lake of Fire. A burning River of Fire where those who did not hear the Gospel of Christ - infants included - will be tormented for all of eternity by a "just" G-d where there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Just where does this idea come from?

There was a scholarly paper published in the late 19th Century by Dr. J.W. Hansen called The Bible Hell, where the author painstakingly traces the origins of what many in the Christian faith take is "gospel truth."

I challenge you to read even a small portion of this paper. Warning: you will most likely abandon this notion of a physical place called hell that is designed by the Creator as a place of eternal torment for those who do not believe in Jesus.

Here is a link to the paper:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html

BTW, I realize that there are many at T-Web who do not believe in a physical hell. I am interested in those who DO believe in a physical hell. My challenge is for them to read this paper and defend their position in light of Dr. Hansen's revelations.

NORM

[RBerman]

Norm, there's nothing new there. (Not surprising for a book written in the 1880s!) All these claims have been answered a zillion times by evangelical scholars. Hansen's main claim is that "Hades" is best translated "grave" without any implication of post-death torment. His explanation of the story of Lazarus the beggar is extremely unconvincing, boiling down to "surely this story isn't describing anything that could really happen." If so, that would make it unique among Jesus' parables, which all describe reasonable circumstances familiar to his listeners. Meh.

You are aware that "Hell" and "Lake of Fire" are not synonymous in Christian theology, right? Hell is temporary; Hansen was right about that. But it's followed by the Lake of Fire, which appears to be a similarly tormenting experience.

[gharfish]

What are the origins of 'Bible hell' and the 'lake of fire that burns with sulphur, which is the second death'--the Hebrew's S/sheol (Hades) too.....what many Christians take as "gospel truth" ?

*Best think what did Jesus, himself, think were the origins of his hell.* And the otherworldly hell is indeed his; anybody else's ?

Only Muhammad's--his "idea", some 600 years later, is the other hell that comes to mind.

[John Goddard]

As I can see, the description of a burning fire comes from the idea of God burning away sin, both in this life and the next, as a metaphor. Example:

Malachi 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:

Malachi 3:3 And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness.

[gharfish]

More Malachi; next chapter, verse one:

"Behold, the day is coming that shall burn like a furnace. All the arrogant, yes, and all the wicked and lawless, shall be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of Hosts. so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 24-25.]

Compare to Matthew 3: 12:

"His (Jesus') winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear out and clean His threshing floor and gather and store His wheat in His barn, but the chaff He will burn up with a fire that cannot be put out."
~ John the baptizer, speaking about Jesus.

[John Goddard]

More Malachi; next chapter, verse one:

"Behold, the day is coming that shall burn like a furnace. All the arrogant, yes, and all the wicked and lawless, shall be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of Hosts. so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. 24-25.]

Compare to Matthew 3: 12:

"His (Jesus') winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear out and clean His threshing floor and gather and store His wheat in His barn, but the chaff He will burn up with a fire that cannot be put out."
~ John the baptizer, speaking about Jesus.

I agree, and also that flesh will burn up.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

But not convinced the soul burns forever. Right now I think it is either purified by a Purgatory fire (burning away bad works), or just burns up and ceases to exist in the Lake of Fire (all bad works). But I may change my mind again someday.

[NormATive]

Norm, there's nothing new there. (Not surprising for a book written in the 1880s!) All these claims have been answered a zillion times by evangelical scholars. Hansen's main claim is that "Hades" is best translated "grave" without any implication of post-death torment. His explanation of the story of Lazarus the beggar is extremely unconvincing, boiling down to "surely this story isn't describing anything that could really happen." If so, that would make it unique among Jesus' parables, which all describe reasonable circumstances familiar to his listeners. Meh.

You are aware that "Hell" and "Lake of Fire" are not synonymous in Christian theology, right? Hell is temporary; Hansen was right about that. But it's followed by the Lake of Fire, which appears to be a similarly tormenting experience.

Keep reading. There's more to it than Hades is translated grave. And, not all of these claims of Hansen have been answered a zillion times by evangelical scholars.

His basic premise isn't the mistranslation of Sheol or Hades, rather, it is that Hell is NEVER mentioned in the Old Testament - not even close. Moses NEVER mentions a "Lake of Fire." Not ONE of the prophets predicts eternal torment in a burning river.

Why is the concept of hell foreign to Judaism?

Not only that, but there is a rather lengthy discourse on the poor logic of an eternal hellfire. This is the best and most convincing part, in my estimation. Keep reading.

No, you've barely scratched the surface. Most evangelicals I've encountered have never heard of Hansen, and I've brought it up every chance I get. When this was first broached in this forum, not one of the uber-fundies had anything to say other than "this has all been answered before" without answering any of the main ideas Hansen brings to the game.

My suspicion is that they didn't bother reading Hansen. It is rather lengthy, but it is worth reading if you are serious about questioning the concept of eternal torment from a G-d defined as "love."

Keep reading!

NORM

[seanD]

Keep reading. There's more to it than Hades is translated grave. And, not all of these claims of Hansen have been answered a zillion times by evangelical scholars.

His basic premise isn't the mistranslation of Sheol or Hades, rather, it is that Hell is NEVER mentioned in the Old Testament - not even close. Moses NEVER mentions a "Lake of Fire." Not ONE of the prophets predicts eternal torment in a burning river.

Why is the concept of hell foreign to Judaism?


Because there was no lake of fire. This is interpreted as an ultimate end time judgment. Not even Satan or the demons have been sent there yet. Hell was considered a type of holding place for both righteous and unrighteous. I believe in the book of Enoch, these holding places are separated (it's been awhile since I read that book), or divided in levels. The abyss or bottomless pit where some fallen angels are held is also a holding place (probably beings that are just too unruly to let loose until the final judgment). Jesus' reference to paradise to the thief while on the cross was also believed to be a type of hell or holding place, not heaven.

Theologically this makes sense. The lake of fire wouldn't be a revelation to mankind until the advent of the son who would offer redemption and a means to escape it. Even though it's extreme beyond measure to us, apparently, to God, it's the righteous judgment for those rejecting his son. You can agree or disagree, but if the NT scriptures are true, this is just the way it is.

As to your reference to the innocent and to babies -- this was just typical agnostic emotional blather. I would assume based on common sense that babies won't be fried, neither will those who never heard about Christ. How do I know? There are many references to degrees of judgment before the end, both good and bad. Revelations also speaks of a first and second resurrection. The scriptures don't directly state that the "first" resurrection are just Christians, but those who didn't accept the mark of the beast -- whatever this pertains to is open for a slew of debate, but it is apparently a conscious and definitive choice for each individual during that moment.

I would advise the atheists who roam this forum day after day -- some for years -- hearing the truth over and over to take heed of this. They might shirk it off as though they don''t care, but I think they do, otherwise they wouldn't waste so much time here if they didn't. "To whom much is given, much is expected." In the end, the punishment will fit the crime.

[RBerman]

Keep reading. There's more to it than Hades is translated grave. And, not all of these claims of Hansen have been answered a zillion times by evangelical scholars.

His basic premise isn't the mistranslation of Sheol or Hades, rather, it is that Hell is NEVER mentioned in the Old Testament - not even close. Moses NEVER mentions a "Lake of Fire." Not ONE of the prophets predicts eternal torment in a burning river.

Why is the concept of hell foreign to Judaism?
Revelation was progressive. The Trinity is not in the Old Testament either. Neither is the incarnation of God in Christ. "What did they know in Old Testament times?" is a good beginning to theology but a very poor ending. You may as well ask, "Why didn't Abraham know that God's name was 'I AM THAT I AM."

No, you've barely scratched the surface. Most evangelicals I've encountered have never heard of Hansen, and I've brought it up every chance I get. When this was first broached in this forum, not one of the uber-fundies had anything to say other than "this has all been answered before" without answering any of the main ideas Hansen brings to the game.
Why would we have heard of Hansen in particular? There are numerous other authors to make similar points over the centuries, and I don't feel obligated to read each of them at length just to see what their idiosyncrasies are on the same basic ideas. That game of theological whack-a-mole is endless and fruitless.

My suspicion is that they didn't bother reading Hansen. It is rather lengthy, but it is worth reading if you are serious about questioning the concept of eternal torment from a G-d defined as "love."
I'm not serious about questioning the concept of eternal torment from a God defined as "love" because I also know that God is defined as "holy" and is justly wrathful toward disobedient men. I plead guilty to not reading the whole thing once the bits I did read sounded very familiar. If there's some particular point out of that book you'd like to discuss, highlight it and we'll proceed. But "Read this 100 page book because I want to debate it with you" is really not a fair request. Debating Hansen is pointless; he's long dead. How about I debate you?

[Bernie]

More Malachi; next chapter, verse one:

"Behold, the day is coming that shall burn like a furnace. All the arrogant, yes, and all the wicked and lawless, shall be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of Hosts. so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. [Isa. 5: 21-24-25.]

Compare to Matthew 3: 12:

"His (Jesus') winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear out and clean His threshing floor and gather and store His wheat in His barn, but the chaff He will burn up with a fire that cannot be put out."
Now to find the proper equation, put all of Malachi together: God Himself is the eternal fire in which human evil or falsity is destroyed....in the same way the evil of cancer is destroyed in surgery, restoring the good of health to the individual.

1) Destruction by fire (of that which keeps one impure) Eternality applies to the degree and length of destruction--to what degree evil is destroyed from the soul, forever--not to the length of endurance by the recipient.
2) Restoration in the midst of the same destruction to new life (restoration to purity)

This sums the entire message of Christ. God brings life from death, not God punishes some forever and let's others into heaven...the gospel is not, as the church currrently teaches, a message of destruction to some, it's one of restoration to all.

[John Goddard]

Why is the concept of hell foreign to Judaism?

It's not.

Hell is a place of fire where sinners are punished after they die. Certain classes of people who deny religion receive eternal punishment there (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 3:5-6), but most sinners are punished there for only (up to) a year (Mishnah Eduyos 2:9; Talmud Shabbos 33a). (http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=467)

[NormATive]

It's not.

Hell is a place of fire where sinners are punished after they die. Certain classes of people who deny religion receive eternal punishment there (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 3:5-6), but most sinners are punished there for only (up to) a year (Mishnah Eduyos 2:9; Talmud Shabbos 33a). (http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=467)


The Mishneh is a COMMENTARY. I should have said that hell is foreign to the Torah. Besides, Rambam does not ascribe to an eternal place of torment called hell. The fire is one of a purifying dross not unlike what Catholics believe. But, the concept of an eternal pit of torment is missing from Torah and not within even Rambam's conservative, mean G-d perspective. The Rambam was influenced the same as Christians by Greek mythology.

If you had read Hansen, you would know that.

NORM

[NormATive]

This sums the entire message of Christ. God brings life from death, not God punishes some forever and let's others into heaven...the gospel is not, as the church currently teaches, a message of destruction to some, it's one of restoration to all.

Yes.

Move to the head of the class!

NORM

[NormATive]

I believe in the book of Enoch, .

Enoch is a non-Canonical book. Even Catholics do not include it in the apocryphal section of their Bibles.

If you wish to comment from a Christian perspective, as a "person of the book," you should stick to the approved texts.

Otherwise, why not just bring in The Gospel of Thomas or Mary? We could have a lot of fun with those two!

NORM

[NormATive]

Revelation was progressive.

So, what is your opinion of the revelation to the Latter Day Saints? If the New Testament is a "new revelation," then that is a precedent for another revelation.

You may as well ask, "Why didn't Abraham know that God's name was 'I AM THAT I AM."

Uh, you are aware that Moses wrote that book where he asks G-d his name. (that means he DID know).


Why would we have heard of Hansen in particular?

Precisely. It's because the evangelical church has no response to his criticisms. That's why you WONT find it referenced in Christian libraries.

However, when it was published in the 1800s it caused quite a stir!

That game of theological whack-a-mole is endless and fruitless.

Not according to King David:

With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments. Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.
With my lips have I declared all the judgments of thy mouth.
I have rejoiced in the way of thy testimonies, as much as in all riches.
I will meditate in thy precepts, and have respect unto thy ways.
I will delight myself in thy statutes: I will not forget thy word.
I'm not serious about questioning the concept of eternal torment from a God defined as "love" because I also know that God is defined as "holy" and is justly wrathful toward disobedient men.

You've made your mind up.

Got it.

If there's some particular point out of that book you'd like to discuss, highlight it and we'll proceed. But "Read this 100 page book because I want to debate it with you" is really not a fair request. Debating Hansen is pointless; he's long dead.

I would do this, but it would get deleted for "spamming." Someone else tried to do just that, and it is the reason I've started this thread.

It's my thread, and the rules are: read Hansen. I did several years ago even though I felt just like you - in fact, I used the same excuse almost word for word! But I read the entire thing. Yeah, it took a while, but it changed my entire perspective. It brought the respect and awe for G-d that I now hold that was missing back then.

If I had a rule about not reading books by people who are dead, I wouldn't be reading the Bible now, would I?

How about I debate you?

Because it would be "off topic."

NORM

[seanD]

Enoch is a non-Canonical book. Even Catholics do not include it in the apocryphal section of their Bibles.

If you wish to comment from a Christian perspective, as a "person of the book," you should stick to the approved texts.

Otherwise, why not just bring in The Gospel of Thomas or Mary? We could have a lot of fun with those two!

NORM

Most of the later NT apocryphal in the second and later centuries were obvious forgeries with fake pseudonyms. There are many things about the apocrypha which make them obvious candidates for rejection, but the act of forgery alone is a pretty strong case. Of course there were different sects of Judaism as there were different sects of Christianity, but the Jews were slightly different in how they treated their doctrine and written texts. Jude, the "accepted" epistle, quoted the book of Enoch. Jesus' story about Lazarus, the rich man, and the channel separating them also reflects the book of Enoch. One of the reasons (not the only reason of course) the book of Enoch was rejected by Jews was because of its Son of Man references which were too uncomfortably close to Christian doctrine, so it's no wonder. And Christians basically rejected and accepted the OT books that the Jews accepted -- "if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us." But regardless, my point was that hell was considered a holding place (Matthew 12:40; Acts 2:25-31), of which the book of Enoch, among other Hebrew books, reflects.

[gharfish]

..........1) Destruction by fire (of that which keeps one impure) Eternality applies to the degree and length of destruction--to what degree evil is destroyed from the soul, forever--not to the length of endurance by the recipient.
2) Restoration in the midst of the same destruction to new life (restoration to purity)

This sums the entire message of Christ. God brings life from death, not God punishes some forever and let's others into heaven...the gospel is not, as the church currrently teaches, a message of destruction to some, it's one of restoration to all.You quoted me, asking viewers here to put all of Malachi together.

You did, and you came up with points 1) and 2).

To sum up the teachings of Christ, Jesus, on the subject of hell, you must let make his actual spoken teachings define his gospel of salvation plan. Read them; don't want to read universalism into them without HEARING His actual words spoken about God's coming day of judgement and whatever punishment that hell is. The specific quoted teachings, word-by-word, do do that.



A BTW; an eternal everlasting (permanent and irreversible, that is) forever punishment can be the completed accomplishment of what becomes utter destruction of a person--the end of that process of unknown length that is to perish. It's an eventual real death--an unending state (naturally) once it's reached, as in the "John 3 :16 fashion." That's "the gospel... as the church currently teaches," right ?

Physical death alone would be eternal (permanent) if God didn't resurrect the dead.



>

[Overlord!]

In another thread in Unorthodox Theology, the idea of Universal Salvation is being debated. The opponents of Universal Salvation contend that if one doesn't "believe," one is tossed into a Lake of Fire. A burning River of Fire where those who did not hear the Gospel of Christ - infants included - will be tormented for all of eternity by a "just" G-d where there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Just where does this idea come from?

NORM

Ok Norm,
I am going to clear all this up by bringing darkness (confusion) to Light (clarity).

Hell is a belief.
Hell is belief.
Hell is the land of belief...of make-believe.
Hell comprises all beliefs.
Hell comprises all that is imagined.
Beliefs form the land of hell, and the land supports belief in hell.
So, it's a vicious cycle.
Belief and faith are synonyms.
Faith is the "substance" of "things hoped for".
And,
Faith is the substance of the "land" of hell.
Therefore,
"Things hoped for" is the substance of the land of hell.
Faith is the "evidence" of what can't be seen.
In other words,
Faith initially blinds us to what is "there".
What is there is Light.
Faith turns out the light, and hopes to see things in the dark.
And hoping...faith "sees" things.
Faith sees by the light of giant fireballs.
But this is a blind faith...an optical delusion of consciousness = odd con.
Blind faith yields a strange deception [odd con].
Therefore,
Hell is a strange deception.

Hell is a land that floats on a sea of liquid fire.
The sea of liquid fire is in the middle of the earth.
Hell is lit by giant fireballs...churning with liquid seas of fire.
The fireballs are centered over the sea of liquid fire.
The fireballs offer fake light...mocking the true Light.
Hell floats on a thin layer of hardened liquid fire.
And liquid fire regularly erupts up through the thin, hardened layer.
The hardened layer moves and shakes and rises and sinks.
And it spins wildly in ice cold darkness in the middle of nowhere.
Everything in hell is attacking everything....
...and everything dies...
...even the giant fireballs of fake light....
...leaving ice cold dark emptiness.

Hell is an oxymoron.
Hell is where the light is dark, and the dark is light.
Hell is where the good is bad, and the bad is good.
Hell is where the living are dead, and the dead never die.
Hell is where the unlimited is limited, and the limited have unlimited "potential".
Hell is where the true is a lie, and a lie is "the truth".
Hell is where the sane are crazy and the crazy are sane.
Hell is where the strong grow weak, and the weak grow strong.
Hell is where everything is nothing, and nothing is everything.
Hell is where eternity is temporary, and time is money.
Hell is where nothing remains the same except change.
Hell is where nothing is for sure...except "death and taxes".
Hell is where all are "born to die".
Hell is where the perishing become food and food perishes.
Hell is where everything becomes food for worms...and "where the worm never dies".

So,
Hell is confusion.
And,
Confusion is darkeness.
So,
Hell is where Jesus preached about the Light.

In the darkness, the confused gnash their teeth.
They bite each others heads off over what they believe.
No one in hell believes the truth.
Everyone in hell has rejected the truth.
Everybody in hell entertains seriously insane notions [acronym: s.i.n.] about the truth
In hell, each believes his own truth.
In hell, each believes.
Each to his own hell.

Hell is a concept...a self-concept.
Hell is the concept of "Christ crucified".
Hell is the concept of Christ "born to die".
Hell is "from womb to tomb".
Hell is a tomb for all time, and all time is a tomb.
Hell is a great leviathin that swallows up men.
Escape from hell is like a man escaping from the belly of a whale [the "sign of Jonah"].
Hell begins with unbelief in Christ.
Hell ends with belief in Christ.

Hell is the self-concept of self-denial.
Hell begins when Self denies it ever knew itself.
Hell ends with Self-acceptance.
Hell is outside...a cast out...an exile.
Self is "within".
So,
Hell is like dark dirt, hiding the Light within.
When the dirt is all washed off, the Light will shine again.
Hell is temporary, comprising all of time.
Self is eternal.
Hell shall "pass away" when it is washed away.
When hell is washed away, it will be gone forever...for all eternity.

Hell is a "house divided against itself".
A "house" is a "temple" is a "mind".
Hell is a conflict of interests inside the mind of Christ.
When the conflict is resolved, peace will return to one's mind.
Christ is of one mind.
Hell is of many minds.
Many minds is a belief in the mind of Christ.
Many minds is a concept that destroys the One mind.
Hell begins when the One mind is broken for the many minds.
Hell begins when time ends eternity.
Hell ends in "the last days"...when the Eternal One "comes again".
The "last days" are the days spent waking up from a self-concept.
The "last days" are when common sense comes again.
The "last days" come when the "last judgment" is made.
The "last judgement" is when we stop judging and "judge not".
Hell begins with the very first judgement, and ends with the very "last judgement".
After the last judgement, there is no more judgement...so hell will be banished for all eternity.

Judgement is a tool of magic.
Judgement declares to be true what is nOt true.
Judgment says, "So mote it be...with harm toward all".
Judgment says, "Let there be light...giant fireballs of cancer causing fake light".
Judgement says, "This land is real", and, "Welcome to reality".
Judgement says, "God gave me this land", and, judgement fights for the land.
So,
Judgement is essentially spell-casting.
Judgment casts a spell over the mind of Christ.
Judgement condemns Christ to hell, and mocks him daily, with malice toward all.
That's the "bad news".
The gospel is the "good news" that dispels the bad news cast by the spell over the mind of Christ.
Salvation, therefore, is psychological....for the mind.
The gospel is the truth that washes away lies.
Hell is a lie filled with lies.
The gospel floods hell with truth...washing it away.
Whatever is built on sand will fall when the waters of truth come.
The waters of truth come from "within"...and wash away all that is without.
"Within" is the "Kingdom of God".
The Kingdom of God is Christ is the Truth is Reality.
The kingdoms of hell are anti-christ is a lie is an illusion.
The gates of the kingdoms of hell are the closed minds of believers.
The gates of hell open whenever the believers gnash their teeth.
The violent gates of hell cannot prevail against the gentle flood of truth.
Though they close their minds, the writing is on the wall, and the "last days" approach steadily.
Behold, the truth stands at the door and...knocks! Politely.
Ahem...
Things are not what they appear to be.
Nothing you believe is true.
Hell is a belief....in your mind.
Hell is an hallucination of your imagination.
And, in this way, line upon line...
the belief in hell is washed away.
When it is gone, there will be nothing left but a voice, saying...
"Behold, this is my beloved Son".

The gospel tells us about a choice between "Heaven" and "hell".
It's really a choice between Self and a self-concept.
It's a choice between more of the sane, or more of the same.
It's a choice between sanity and insanity.
It's a choice between Knowledge (gnosis) or beliefs (faith in lies).
Its a choice between an open mind or a closed mind.
Its a choice between clarity or confusion...between Light or dark...truth or illusion.
Its a choice between magic or Miracle.
A Miracle is the insertion/assertion of Self whereever it is denied.
Salvation, then, is to reassert oneSelf.....and unite a divided mind.
The bottom line is these three words:

"Know thy Self".



Amen.

[NormATive]

One of the reasons (not the only reason of course) the book of Enoch was rejected by Jews was because of its Son of Man references which were too uncomfortably close to Christian doctrine

I think you've got this backward. Enoch was written WELL before there were any Christians around. So, I think the New Testament writers, knowing the apocalyptic message of Enoch, copied into their epistles. Whoever wrote Revelation most definitely copied entire segments of Enoch. This is why Greek Orthodox reject (sort of) the book of Revelation.

It was this apocalyptic message that Jews rejected in Enoch long before Jesus' time. That's why it never was accepted as part of Torah. The Son of Man reference in Judaism does not refer to Moshiac. It is just a fancy word for "man."

Here's an example from Torah:

לא אישׁ אל ויכזב ובן־אדם ויתנחם ההוא אמר ולא יעשׂה ודבר ולא יקימנה God is not a man (איש : ['iysh]), that he should lie,Nor a son of man (בן–אדם : [ben-'adam]), that he should repent:Has he said, and will he not do it?Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good?According to common scripture usage, the "son of man" is numbered among those who should repent. Why would you affix this phrase to someone you consider equal to G-d?


my point was that hell was considered a holding place (Matthew 12:40; Acts 2:25-31), of which the book of Enoch, among other Hebrew books, reflects.

It is very clear that most English translations of the Bible imply that hell is a physical place of eternal torment. Either those sections of the Bible are incorrect, or there has been a serious mistranslation of scripture.

NORM

[NormATive]

Ok Norm,
I am going to clear all this up by bringing darkness (confusion) to Light (clarity)...

"Know thy Self". .

Thanks Overlord. If I understand you correctly, you are of the opinion that hell is an illusion we create in our minds that can obfuscate a correct vision of reality. We create hell by misinterpreting the lessons of life in a selfish way. When we "die to self," we release ourselves from the captivity of a need for belief in hell.

And further, that belief in Christ purges hell from our consciousness.

Clear as mud?

NORM

[seanD]

It was this apocalyptic message that Jews rejected in Enoch long before Jesus' time. That's why it never was accepted as part of Torah. The Son of Man reference in Judaism does not refer to Moshiac. It is just a fancy word for "man."

In Daniel it is the divine son of man (enash) that is also referenced in Enoch. The Jews ultimately rejected it, sometime around the conception of the Masoretic text, because it reflected a Christian apocalyptic motif. I'm not so sure I agree with your reason why they rejected it -- if they even did reject it then -- before the advent of Christianity. There were fragments of it found in the Qumran scrolls. I might have to ask you to show me a source reference proving they did in fact reject it before the advent of Christianity and why.

Here's an example from Torah:
According to common scripture usage, the "son of man" is numbered among those who should repent. Why would you affix this phrase to someone you consider equal to G-d?

Probably because Jesus referred to himself as son of man more than 80 times in all four gospels, both in the human sense -- Psalms, Ezekiel -- and in the divine sense -- Daniel, Enoch.

It is very clear that most English translations of the Bible imply that hell is a physical place of eternal torment. Either those sections of the Bible are incorrect, or there has been a serious mistranslation of scripture.


I never denied it is portrayed as a physical place. But the flames of torment didn't become a revelation until Jesus preached it.

[Overlord!]

Thanks Overlord. If I understand you correctly, you are of the opinion that hell is an illusion we create in our minds that can obfuscate a correct vision of reality. We create hell by misinterpreting the lessons of life in a selfish way. When we "die to self," we release ourselves from the captivity of a need for belief in hell.

And further, that belief in Christ purges hell from our consciousness.

Clear as mud?

NORM

Norm,
Thanks for an excellent summary.
Yes, belief in Christ purges hell from our mind.
Consciousness will be purged along with hell because it facilitates hell.
Consciousness symbolizes another mind...besides our own...which is Christ's.
Belief in Christ is the same as belief in Reality.
Unbelief in Christ initiates and sustains a belief in unreality...and therefore leads to insanity.
Hell is a kind of guilt-driven insanity.
Guilt itself is a lie...conjured up magically when at first we toyed with the mind of Christ.
Guilt arises when we toy with the concept of separation...the antithesis of the oneness of Christ/Reality.

In a way, hell is like a toy in the mind of Christ...a very childish toy.
There is a phrase, "Big toys for big boys".
Well, Christ is very big...and hell is very very small.
Hell is like a speck in Christ's eye, sufficient to blind him.
Einstein echoes this when he said that mans experience is "...an optical delusion of consciousness".
Jesus echoes this when he talked about first removing the "beam" in our own eye before trying to remove the "speck" in our brother's eye.
These are references the the phenomenon of perception.
Perception, along with consciousness, are tools we use to "see" hell...through faith.
Perception blocks Knowledge.
In Knowledge, there is no such thing as perception.
Perception, in the mind of Christ, is a multi-sensory "optical" delusion.
All five senses of the human body contribute to the delusion.
Those trying to remove the speck in their brothers eye are all about behavioral modification.
Yet they are "blind" to the fact that bodies blind us to Reality...so what does it really matter how bodies behave?
Bodies are images...quite literally imagined.
Hence, they are a fantasy.
Bodily behavior makes no difference to Reality.
Nor can behavior reveal Reality to a blind mind.
Only belief in Reality will purge blindness from a faith driven mind.
Faith in Reality is faith *converted* for purposes of salvation instead of damnation.

Hell is "created" by misinterpreting the Truth.
Misinterpretation is synonymous with unbelief in Christ...which is the basis of *miscreation*.
Hell mangles the truth beyond recognition.
Hell is the domain of words, and uses them to block communication [communion] with Christ within.
Words are weak, and easily twisted.
This explains why religions "of the book" are so often appear self-contradictory.
Words, most often, are not used to find truth, but to defend us against the truth.
Book are used like a shield or smokescreen.
They provide us with complex incantations that whitewash our lies.
They preoccupy our minds with oracles ominous enough to fill us with aweful superstitions.

Hell is for f.u.n.
Fun is unconscious fantasy.
It's a game...a mind game.
It's primarily a blame game...needing guilt to keep the game going.
Hell is an utter deception...self-imposed...for the hell of it.
Hell has thousands of deceptive devices.
The body itself is made for self-deception...easily decieved by its obvious limitations.
The body's eyes are designed to see only what is not true!
Eyeballs see only insanity.
In fact, eyeballs see nothing.
The mechanism for seeing is connected to our mental paradigm.
When we shift our paradigm, we can "see" the new paradigm.
The Holy Spirit uses consciousness to "see" Christ.
Christ, seen in consciousness, is the "way" we go Home.
Christ, seen in consciousness, is as much a symbol as everything else in consciousness.
But Christ in consciousness is symbolic of "Heaven"...the realm of Knowledge.
We go "through" Christ in consciousness enroute back to *Our Father*.
Christ in consciousness is what Jesus meant when he talked about how the Kingdom of God was "at hand".
It is neither here nor there, but "spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it." [see gospel of Thomas #113.
We must "believe" in it to "see" it.
Belief in it will purge our mind's of what we currently "see" and think is "real".
Rather, we see illusions, mocking reality...mangling reality beyond recognition.

We can "see" Christ in consciousness when we "die" to the concepts that drive the illusion of a self apart from Christ.
Those concepts are rooted in being special, different, autonomous, separate and guilty.
The root of the illusion is the desire to be special.
The desire to be special is what is driving the phenomenon of personhood, manhood, womanhood, elfhood, robinhood, neighborhood...not to mention "hoods".
These all constitute self-concepts.
We "die" to self-concepts by withdrawing the faith we have invested in them.
Without faith, they wither away and gradually disappear.
They disappear when Christ in consciousness fully appear to our sight.
This explains why Jesus teachings are largely "Kingdom of God" oriented.
He was trying to get us to see what he saw...Christ!
Seeing Christ is needed for us to fully Identify with Christ as Self.
Jesus saw, and identified with.
Baptism, properly speaking, purges our minds of what blinds us to the sight of Christ.
Like Jesus, if we saw Christ, we would "know" we are Christ.
Sight of Christ triggers an ancient "memory".
Essentially, we are endeavoring to remember who we are.
"Do this in memory of me" means do this to remember your Self.
Hence again,

"Know thy Self"


Amen

[Overlord!]

But the flames of torment didn't become a revelation until Jesus preached it.

All of Jesus' references to "hell" are in reference to "the world".
Hell and the world are synonymous, and may be used interchangeably.
The world is torment...because the world is "Christ crucified".
John 3:18 says those who don't believe in Christ are "condemned already".
Simply put, you are in hell aleady if you believe in any kind of physical identity.
If you are a "person"...you are in hell.
If you have "teeth"....you are where there is "gnashing of teeth".
And most bodies are eaten by worms long before they are buried in dirt.
All you have to do is read the daily headlines to understand where is hell.

The "Lazarus" parable is an interpolation...inserted into the mouth of Jesus.
It reflects the state of mind of the NT scribe more than that of Jesus.
It's time to admit that the pop gospels are embellished novels.

The fires of hell are all guilt driven...quite literally.
If there is a fire anywhere in the world...it is a guilt driven phenomenon.
And this is because all physical/elemental phenom is rooted in guilt.
There would be no physical world without it, just as there would be no civilization without gravity.

Guilt drives minds mad...torturing them with fear of punishment...keeping us running and hiding.
The physical worlds are reactions to the problem of guilt...built to push it underground...burying it in the collective subconsious.
As such, "the universe" is the proverbial "fig leaf".
It serves to buffer the most intense feelings of guilt...which are all before the foundation of the world.
The universe releases guilt over time...like a time release drug.
All the horrendous circumstances of the world are for justifying the feeling of guilt...proving guilt is the truth.

Therefore, when guilt is gone, so goes hell, aka "the universe".
Guilt will go when the truth comes.
The truth is guilt is a lie.
Simply by being itself, the truth takes away the sins of the world.

[John Goddard]

The Mishneh is a COMMENTARY. I should have said that hell is foreign to the Torah. Besides, Rambam does not ascribe to an eternal place of torment called hell. The fire is one of a purifying dross not unlike what Catholics believe. But, the concept of an eternal pit of torment is missing from Torah and not within even Rambam's conservative, mean G-d perspective. The Rambam was influenced the same as Christians by Greek mythology.

If you had read Hansen, you would know that.

NORM

Whatever. You asked why Hell is foreign to Judaism, and it's not.

[smaneck]

Belief and faith are synonyms.


I'm not sure I would agree with that. It seems to me that belief is acceptance of certain intellectual proposition whereas faith is a relationship of trust.

[gharfish]

They overlap, right ?

[smaneck]

.

Why is the concept of hell foreign to Judaism? [

It is foreign in the sense that it was of foreign (Persian Zoroastrian) origin, but by the time of Christ Jews were certainly familiar with the concept. The Pharisees believed in it but the Saduccees did not.

[gharfish]

How did Jesus learn of it so well that he really took off with it, like he did, do you think ?

[smaneck]

How did Jesus learn of it so well that he really took off with it, like he did, do you think ?

I'm not so much persuaded He did take off with it.. As I mentioned, the word which gets consistently translated as 'hell' in the Gospels is Gehenna, a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem.

[gharfish]

But hells are found in times and places and cultures separated by centuries and continents before and after Jesus really 'ran with it.' Jesus' and Muhammad's hells are the hell of all hells. And hell just won't stay out of religions where it didn't exist from the start, like say Hinduism and Buddhism.

[seanD]

I'm not so much persuaded He did take off with it.. As I mentioned, the word which gets consistently translated as 'hell' in the Gospels is Gehenna, a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem.

It isn't just the word "hell" that needs to be considered in Jesus' teachings, but the imagery Jesus used in many of his parables of burning with firing "at the end of the age," which coincides with the Lake of Fire or the last judgment.

[Overlord!]

I'm not sure I would agree with that. It seems to me that belief is acceptance of certain intellectual proposition whereas faith is a relationship of trust.

For purposes of salvation, its good to "discern" distinctions, to separate the sheep from the goats, so to speak.

There are generally two kinds of everything in the world. As it regards belief and faith...
A.) Belief in lies
B.) Belief in truth

C.) Faith in the lie.
D.) Faith in the Truth.

One could then call A. "unbelief".
One could then call B. "belief"
One could then call C. "faithlessness".
One could then call D. "faithfulness".

Whatever terms we use, it's important to keep our terms straight. Otherwise, we will just keep fooling ourselves.

What would you call fanatical devotion to a lie?
What would you call half-hearted belief in truth?
What would you call whole hearted devotion to the truth?

In order to clarify the matter, let me just say that before faith/belief there was clarity of Knowledge.
God knows everything.
So,
Christ knows everything.
Knowing everything, there is nothing to believe.
Beyond everything, there is nothing but belief.

Believing is the "original sin".
Believing leads a mind beyond knowledge...into the realm of the unknown.
Originally, Christ is the known.
In sin, Christ is the unknown.

Stated another way, belief in the unknown is unbelief in Christ.
Unbelief in Christ is the original sin...and is the only sin.
This is echoed in John 16:8
I'm giving you the Comforter's definition of sin...*unbelief in Christ*.

It matters not how the world defines sin.
The world defines sin in a way that perpetuates the world...maintaining its appearance.
It usually defines sin in terms of behavior. But that is misleading.
Behavior...all behavior begins with sin.
There would be no behavior without sin.

Behavior is not an attribute of Christ.
Behavior is beyond Christ...beyond Knowledge.
Unbelief in Christ gives rise to all physical phenomenon.
Unbelief in Christ is the same as faith in lies.
Faith in lies gives rise to the following appearances...
Time
Change
Form
Galaxies
Stars
Planets
Plants
Animals
Humans
Elves
Fairies
Water
Fire
Air
Earth.

Faith, in its original purpose, is a tool of magic...to manifest impossible contradictions such as:

Good and not good (evil).
Knowledge and not knowledge (ignorance).
Life and not life (death).
Truth and not truth (lies).
Everything and not everything (nothing)

Since these are opposites, they can only be combined by...magic!
The most ancient tools of magic include:

Judgement ("so mote it be", "let there be light")
Wishing
Imagination (images, graven images, "let us make man in our own "
Emotion
Faith
Perception
Consciousness
Energy

These were all unknown before "original sin".
These are not knowable.
They are only believable.

As a rule of thumb, if you have opposible thumbs, you have been messing around with magic, and continue to do so.
If you don't remember "creating" your manhood, or your womanhood, or your elfhood...it's because magic virtually destroys the mind of the magician.
No one in the world can remember his attack on himself.
Magic has made "memory"...and erased it.
Magic always weakens...transforming one mind into all things divided and conquered.
Magic belittles Christ and makes anti-christs who have all "fallen short of the glory of GoD".
Magic transforms Christ into "man, beast, and all manner of creeping things".

In brief, "the universe" is a magical manifestation of all that is anti-christ.
The universe...is "the" anti-christ.
The Kingdom of God is...Christ.
The Kingdom of God is..."within"
The universe is...without (outside) Christ. [metaphor: "gehenna"]
The universe is...hell.

Heaven and hell are both within the mind of Christ.
Hell is composed of a "house divided against itself".
That is,
Hell is a mind in conflict with itself...attempting to reconcile (combine) opposites.

Behavior is an attribute of hell...because all bodies are attributes of hell...of magical manifestation.
Bodies are a manifestation of *many*...against the One (Christ).
The many destroys the One...virtually...conceptually...theoritically...hypothetically.

Belief in many is unbelief in Christ.
Belief in many yields man and man's behavior.
So,
there is no behavior that can absolve anyone from sin.
Because,
there is no behavior that can make the body disappear.

That's why it is said that "good works" can't get you to heaven.
And that is why it is "faith alone" that gets you there.
Only faith in Christ can make the body disappear.
Only faith in Christ can make individuality disappear.
Only faith in Christ can make persons disappear.
There is "no Jew or Greek, nor male or female in Christ".

At best, we have the behavior of believing in Christ.
The behavior of believing in Christ is whatever helps us believe in Christ.
When we truly believe, all of our behavior will be guilded by Christ.
And when we are finished believing, we will behave no more...having no more bodies.
Instead, we will have the glory given to us before the foundation of the world.
We will have the glory of Christ.
We will be Christ.
We will be Christ....because we [I]are Christ....in truth.
We are the "son of man" in lies.
Man is a "mask" over the face of Christ...veiling the Light.


What people don't "get" yet is that belief in the truth must be in concert with unbelief in lies.
So long as people believe in people...people will not be saved from their magically manifested lies.
When we take off the masks, we will see the Light.

Amen

[gharfish]

...Your thoughts, smaneck ?!

Sorry; but that is too 'out there' (Faith in lies: Elves, Fairies ??) and too much of it altogether to consider, IMO. No, I shouldn't say that; this is the unorthodox theology forum. Fair enough then.

[Overlord!]

...Your thoughts, smaneck ?!

Sorry; but that is too 'out there' (Faith in lies: Elves, Fairies ??) and too much of it altogether to consider, IMO. No, I shouldn't say that; this is the unorthodox theology forum. Fair enough then.

Here's something to consider...
How can you tell if an elf is lying?
Whenever it moves it's lips.
Get it?
How can what does not exist move its lips?
Same with man.
Man is as much a mythological creature as anything C.S. Lewis can conjure up.
So, a man that tells the truth is kind of a paradox.
The best a man can do is devote himself to the truth.
Then, truth will *convert* the use of his words, his mouth, his body...to point to the truth.
This is all Jesus ever did...point to the truth through parable and parody.

[Obsidian]

Logically, hell must involve torment to at least some degree. The Bible teaches varying degrees of punishment for different kinds of sin and different levels of rebellion against divine revelation. If God merely gave everyone the same annihilationist death penalty, the punishment wouldn't fit the crime.

[Overlord!]

...Your thoughts, smaneck ?!

Sorry; but that is too 'out there' (Faith in lies: Elves, Fairies ??) and too much of it altogether to consider, IMO. No, I shouldn't say that; this is the unorthodox theology forum. Fair enough then.


Here's something else to consider.
Faith must be *converted* before it can be useful toward salvation.
Faith is first used to make the world.
Converted, it is used to unmake the world...that it may "pass away".
Faith is the very substance of the world.
The world is a virtual belief.
The world can't be seen but by faith...just as fairies can't be seen but by faith.
We see what we hope to see...through faith.
This is echoed in the book of Hebrews 11:1,3



1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

3Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

What the scribe of Hebrews doesn't say, is that the "word of god" conjures ("frames") up the "worlds" by fiat of magical incantation...by what I've called "judgement", ie. "so mote it be" or "let there be light". Judgement essentially pronounces true, what was not true before, and will never be true. Judgement simply proclaims, "That's the way it is"...whether it is true or not.

Jesus understood that this kind of judgment is what the "prodigal son" does with his power. This is how the prodigal son "became flesh"...through magical morphing...shapeshifting on a cosmic scale. Instead of Spirit, the prodigal son shapeshifts into "flesh"...into "man, beast, and every creeping thing". And this is how judgement condemns, by declaring that lies are true, and the truth is a lie. That is why it is said in John 3:18 that those who do not believe in Christ are "condemned already". Our very own magical judgements against the truth have condemned us to the experience of "flesh" of every kind.

This is the "dirty little secret" of the bible. It hides illicit magic motive for the formation of the world(s).
It tries to whitewash it and paint it over with "God did it".
No..."we" did it...to ourselves.
And in this way, we have crucified ourselves.
Christ just didn't "become" flesh.
Christ became flesh for the hell of it!

The "prodigal son" is a virtual christ...magically manifested as a "mask" over the face of Christ.
"We" are that wayward "son".
That is why it is said, "He came to his own".
"We" are his own...virtual...body...crucified for our "sins" .
Our "sin" is unbelief in Christ...and belief in lies by fiat of "judgement".
When Jesus said "judge not" he meant that to stop the magic, we had to go to its root.
Non-judgement takes an axe to the root of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"...which is "the world(s)" of duality.

[John Goddard]

Jesus understood that this kind of judgment is what the "prodigal son" does with his power. This is how the prodigal son "became flesh"...through magical morphing...shapeshifting on a cosmic scale. Instead of Spirit, the prodigal son shapeshifts into "flesh"...into "man, beast, and every creeping thing".

Ah so Jesus was a Reptilian. That explains it...

[gharfish]

Logically, hell must involve torment to at least some degree. The Bible teaches varying degrees of punishment for different kinds of sin and different levels of rebellion against divine revelation.For some, even S/sheol (hades), where disembodied men and women dwell awaiting the final judement (The Rev. ch. 20, vs. 11-15), surely does involve intense torment. It does, for some. If God merely gave everyone the same annihilationist death penalty, the punishment wouldn't fit the crime.If God eventually totally destroys persons, who are souls, in very simliar way for all, and that painful (psychologically) process lasts just as long for all, then 'getting to' the second death at God's hand could be unjust. A sort of painless euthenasia--a simple 'snuffing out'--is not the way eternal (permanent) death will be done by God for the majority of the damned in hell/the lake of fire, I'm convinced. Weeping and gnashing of teeth precedes it, for good reason!...right ?

[Overlord!]

Ah so Jesus was a Reptilian. That explains it...

I see that you have transformed yourself into a sophomore.

Romans 1:21-32 "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. "

"They", in this passage, is reference to the collective "prodigal son"...which divides and becomes *many* (plural).
This is the elohim (plural) gods of genesis who make man in "our" image.
"We" collectively, are that prodigal son.
And as such, "we" have all fallen short of the glory of God.

[NormATive]

Whatever. You asked why Hell is foreign to Judaism, and it's not.

You won't find a place like hell in the Hebrew Bible. That's what I meant. MOST Jews do not believe in it.

Those who do are accepting an extra-biblical influence.

Read Hansen - it's all explained there.

NORM

[NormATive]

It is foreign in the sense that it was of foreign (Persian Zoroastrian) origin, but by the time of Christ Jews were certainly familiar with the concept. The Pharisees believed in it but the Saduccees did not.

My point is, the concept of hell is foreign to the Hebrew Bible and was not something that G-d revealed to Moses. You would think that such a place as hell would warrant at least a mention in the Hebrew scriptures.

The very idea of a place like hell is something borne of human jealousy and a penchant for sadism.

And those who counter with the argument that the punishment fits the crime make G-d out to be an ogre. What "father" would punish his children in such a way - eternal torment for not putting your toys away.

Fah!

NORM

[Obsidian]

Normative, see Daniel 12:1-2

At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

[NormATive]

Normative, see Daniel 12:1-2

I don't see hell in the sense used by contemporary Christians in that scripture. Do you?

NORM

[RBerman]

You won't find a place like hell in the Hebrew Bible. That's what I meant. MOST Jews do not believe in it.
Most Jews don't believe in most of what is clearly in the Old Testament, so I don't think you want to play the popularity card.

[NormATive]

Most Jews don't believe in most of what is clearly in the Old Testament, so I don't think you want to play the popularity card.

Why are you casting aspersions on Jews? They believe what they believe. My point is that you won't find hell in the Old Testament.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Let's stay on topic.

NORM

[Christa]

And those who counter with the argument that the punishment fits the crime make G-d out to be an ogre. What "father" would punish his children in such a way - eternal torment for not putting your toys away.

Fah!

NORM

:candle:

[gharfish]

~a "BTW"...Zoroastrian hell, of the Book of Arda Viraf, may be said to predated Muhammad's writings of what hell is, but it does not predate that of Jesus' description. It's at least a couple or even a few hundred years late there.

[John Goddard]

You won't find a place like hell in the Hebrew Bible. That's what I meant. MOST Jews do not believe in it.

Those who do are accepting an extra-biblical influence.

Read Hansen - it's all explained there.

NORM

Purgatory is there.

Psalms 3:4 I cried unto the LORD with my voice, and he heard me out of his holy hill. Selah.

Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

Psalms 9:17 The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Which agrees with that description of Gehenna from torah.org I posted.

[gharfish]

Unfortunately, The (older) King James Version wrongly translates the Hebrew word sheol for hell every single time it appears in the OT. S/sheol is not the place-state of final eternal/permanent punishment which Jesus said was like the english word, "hell," which is (literally) the valley of Gehenna. v. of Hinnom, in Hebrew.


>

[John Goddard]

Unfortunately, The (older) King James Version wrongly translates the Hebrew word sheol for hell every single time it appears in the OT. S/sheol is not the place-state of final eternal/permanent punishment which Jesus said was like the english word, "hell," which is (literally) the valley of Gehenna. v. of Hinnom, in Hebrew.


>

Irrelevant. You can say that a state of punishment and possible repentance (purgatory) isn't spelled out in plain English, and thus doesn't appear outright as a concept in the Tanach.

But much of Tanach prophecy isn't spelled out either, it makes heavy use of metaphor and must be interpreted in attempts to derive the true meaning. So verses I cited can be interpreted to say there is a place of hell and conscious torment after death, thus, those ideas are in the Tanach as interpreted.

As well as this which has already been mentioned:

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

[gharfish]

Hey, now; I didn't say up there that there wasn't a the concept of a purgatorial "hell" to be found in the OT.

What I communicated was that in the two verses of the three you posted, the Hebrew word sheol is incorrectly translated as the same word: hell, that Jesus used. That's a KJV peculiarity and fault. Jesus spoke only once of sheol (hades, in Greek), you know ? It's the 'setting' for a parable lesson that's recorded by Luke.

Of course Jesus believed in S/sheol. He is God. He is the same as the God 'of' the Hebrew OT. In Lk. 16:19, the rich man and the beggar Lazarus are in the intermediate place-state of Sheol, awaiting the final judgement. They are fully concious; alive.



Now I will venture farther, and perhaps really offend you. This one parable says not a thing about S/sheol being purgatorial in nature; the point of the parable hasn't even to do with an illumination for us of the conditions in sheol. Father Abraham himself and the beggar are comforted there; the unrepentent and faithless rich man is in emotional torment. They haven't bodies. The mens' bodies have rotted away, of course. They have yet to be resurrected, physically. That's where 'your' offered Daniel 12:2 comes in.


Human beings are souls and when Jesus told this parable He was saying that the disembodied dead are ALL there. The rich man is somehow separated from Abraham and the poor and yet godly man, Lazarus. The rich man knows already that he is marked for judgement and condemnation. He is miserable. The three are there in Sheol, the place-state, and no one there is in either Heaven nor a true hell of any kind. This is already biblical as Jesus is teaching the people (and us too).

The actual place, "Hell," is like, in some ways, says Jesus, the Gehenna valley. It's not an earthly place. In progressive revelation to His disciple, John, in The Rev., it's finally called "the lake that burns with fire and brimstone which is the second death." It's like a deadly volcanic lake, 'complete with' burning sulphur. The lost to God are lost everlastingly / irreversibly. The are held forever by God and before all those who have been saved from God's wrath in permanent [I]disgrace and contempt. They are dead or dying but not forgotten !

Jesus refers straight back to this brief passage in Daniel in John 5: 21-25-29. He says that some will be resurrected to "life," and others to a resurrection of "judgement." He says that the Father has given him the right to judge men. He will be the sole judge at the final judgement--the white throne judgement (The Rev., ch. 20, v. 11).

Yes, I am being difficult, but I get tired of the numerous Christian(other) verse bendings. Verse 13: Hades, which is the place-state, Sheol, yields up the dead people who are in it.

Jesus did not believe in the Greeks' concept of the underworld of the dead. He said sheol, for the Greeks' pagan underworld of hades wasn't the true one. No god of that same name ruled God's S/sheol. The word hades is there only because the book of Luke as we have it was written in Greek, and not Hebrew. ** Notice, He did not call the real place of the departed dead the valley of Gehenna-like permanent "Hell." **

Good grief; we should not have the old King James Version as the one that we must use--what clicks up, for refernce--on TheologyWeb. Halp; where is the new KJV ?!


The rich man of the parable--all his kind in heart and mind--will be judged according to their deeds. That's a quote: verse 12 and again in 13. This is a real judgement day where a man and a woman's life's deeds and their heart's disposition towards God are examined. Everything is known then to Jesus, Himself; the books contain His knowledge; spoken of in verse 12.


And another book (Rev. 20: 12b) is also present with the judge of all men, Jesus Christ; the book of life. Those who frankly, knowingly, refused God's offered merciful forgiveness of their sins, by rejecting God himself: Jesus!, are automatically damned. Their names have already been blotted out of the book of life. They chose this mad course and they will clearly know it themselves--that they are at fault. Those who do not inherit God's own kind of *life: eternal, will *perish eternally instead. They will be everlastingly destroyed, apart forever from the presence of God, says Paul in 2 Thes. 1: 7b - 9. Paul understood Jesus' teachings on Hell. Do not obey Jesus' salvation gospel and Jesus himself will condemn you and destroy you.

No purgatory; no second chances. Jesus is the hellfire preacher of all hellfire preachers and He never ever said that there is another route to Heaven-->by being purged of your sins in some manner in another place-state. No purgatory. Sheol and the Hell; that's all there is. Purgatory is a made up doctrine--false; not of Jesus.




>

[John Goddard]

So, the rich man of the parable--all his kind in heart and mind--will be judged according to their deeds. That's a quote: verse 12 and again in 13. This is a real judgement day where a man and a woman's life's deeds and their heart's disposition towards God are examined. Everything is known then to Jesus, Himself; the books contain His knowledge; spoken of in verse 12....

No purgatory; no second chances. Jesus is the hellfire preacher of all hellfire preachers and He never ever said that there is another route to Heaven-->by being purged of your sins in some manner in another place-state. No purgatory. Sheol and the Hell; that's all there is. Purgatory is a made up doctrine--false; not of Jesus.

It takes place at a time when Lazarus can still return from the dead, which is seemingly before Judgment and the Lake of Fire, according to sequence of events in Revelation, Peter saying the elements will burn away, etc.

So when Abraham says there is a great gulf fixed between the two realms/states/however you want to view it, where the rich man was can be viewed much the same as a prison, just as Jonah was imprisoned in the fish until he repented and was released. Thus, possibility of a purgatorial state.

Remember that Abraham isn't Judge and did not have power to release the rich man or even give him a taste of water to cool his tongue. But Jesus has all that power.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

And following, who is going to be behind the Gates of Hell, that not even those can prevent Jesus from reaching them to include in his church?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So, you can say purgatory is a made-up doctrine and all that, but it's still a matter of interpretation. There's enough evidence in the Tanach to provide for both temporary purgatorial Hell, as well as for a permanent Hell for those unwilling to repent.

What that permanent Hell might be is the real question: eternal torment, or simply burning up and ceasing to exist.

[gharfish]

..........So, you can say purgatory is a made-up doctrine and all that, but it's still a matter of interpretation. There's enough evidence in the Tanach to provide for both temporary purgatorial Hell, as well as for a permanent Hell for those unwilling to repent.........No it isn't, and no there isn't. Neither in the OT nor in the New is there a "temporary purgatorial Hell." "Evidence to provide for," you say ?! You have to discard S/sheol. Show me then what evidence you have left that's 'enough' for a purgatory place-state between death and the final judgement to everlasting damnation rather than the resurrection to life, forever and ever.

As for the Hell=the lake of fire=the second death; you must address Jesus' teachings, head on. Where is Jesus' purgatory promise ?




>

[Obsidian]

I think Daniel 12:1-2 pretty clearly makes a brief statement about hell. Daniel uses the phrase "everlasting contempt," right after a resurrection and right next to "everlasting life."

You could argue that "contempt" continues after annihilation, but that seems like sort of a stretch.

[seanD]

As for the Hell=the lake of fire=the second death; you must address Jesus' teachings, head on. Where is Jesus' purgatory promise ?




>

The closest I can come to is that there are degrees of judgment. Now I don't exactly know how this applies to sinners. Either there is a purgatory, or perhaps the preterists are wrong and there really will be a literal "first" resurrection before the reign of Christ on earth. And in this first resurrection are the lesser-offense sinners who are given another chance to repent -- or the ones who either never got a chance or not as many chances, or however that plays out. Otherwise, how exactly Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom will suffer lesser judgments than Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida is left unexplained. Unless we assume that there are parts of the lake of fire that are lesser in degrees in heat.

[gharfish]

The resurrection to *life is said to be *everlasting; the only time this is done in the OT. The others who are resurrected to judgement can be held in contempt and be disgraced by God before during and after they suffer the second death. I am using the NASB translation. The two verses in Daniel 12 do allow for conditional immortality, without a stretch.

A famous verse, because Jesus uses it to describe the Hell, He "gets" from Isaiah, ch. 66. It, verse 24, makes a statement that also supports a real eventual death of the condemned--condemned to die, eternally.

Who are the vanquished of God there ? They are men who trangressed against God and were killed and are called, literally, corpses. How did they die ? Isaiah 66: vs. 15-17 tells us. They--many--are angrily and furiously rebuked and slain by fire by the Lord, and they are slain by His sword. Their judgement results in their death; those come to an end altogether. (I am still using the NASB translation.)

Is Jesus teaching us something about Hell, by using Isaiah 66 ? Sure he is ! The slain by God; their corpses remain shamefully unburied and are are viewed by the righteous of Israel, ongoingly--from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath. Their bodies are consumed by worms (maggots) and fire that consumes as well, just like the dead bodies cast in the fiery valley of Gehenna--what's literally the word hell, in English. The fire is irresistable and cannot be extinguished by anyone (quenched) and the worm is not a creature that also can not/does not die, ever, but rather lives forever. No, it is a maggot. The worm is not going to be stopped (quenched) from doing it's/their work. These two elements of destruction, made famous because Jesus quotes them 'out' of Isaiah, are of God's punishment. So, nobody has the authority or power to resist and stop (and so quench) God's anger, rendered, [when He does] furiously execute judgement.

Although the men who trangressed aginst Me are dead, and remain so in plain sight, the memory of them and God's defeat of them goes on indefinitely. The corpses remain to be an abhorrence to all mankind ; yes, though slain.




>

[seanD]

It takes place at a time when Lazarus can still return from the dead, which is seemingly before Judgment and the Lake of Fire, according to sequence of events in Revelation, Peter saying the elements will burn away, etc.

So when Abraham says there is a great gulf fixed between the two realms/states/however you want to view it, where the rich man was can be viewed much the same as a prison, just as Jonah was imprisoned in the fish until he repented and was released. Thus, possibility of a purgatorial state.

Remember that Abraham isn't Judge and did not have power to release the rich man or even give him a taste of water to cool his tongue. But Jesus has all that power.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

And following, who is going to be behind the Gates of Hell, that not even those can prevent Jesus from reaching them to include in his church?

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So, you can say purgatory is a made-up doctrine and all that, but it's still a matter of interpretation. There's enough evidence in the Tanach to provide for both temporary purgatorial Hell, as well as for a permanent Hell for those unwilling to repent.

What that permanent Hell might be is the real question: eternal torment, or simply burning up and ceasing to exist.

I got to go with John here, as the story of Lazarus couldn't possibly be the lake of fire. In Revelation, all things are made new after the White Throne judgment, where God wipes away all tears, sorrow, crying, etc. Since Lazarus and the rich man can see each other, this would hardly end the sorrow and tears of those able to view people in eternal torment. Unless we assume Jesus' parable was merely figurative to impact the fact that those who reject the truth will wish they had another chance when it's too late.

[Obsidian]

The dead Pharisee in the parable with Lazarus is probably trapped in Tartarus with the other demons. See 2 Peter 2:4

But gharfish, I don't understand why you think Daniel 12:1-2 teaches annihilationism. The passage could obviously be a little more clear, but I don't see any good reason to reject the idea that the wicked will live eternally in shame.

[Cupofwrath.com]

Theres alot of confusion about hell in the bible, which why I wrote a book about this subject (and the resurrection of the dead which is intertwined).

My conclusions are as follows: There are two identifiable hell-like places in the bible. Sheol aka Hades, and the Lake of Fire aka Gehenna. You can lock in these connections in the NT. Sheol or Hades is temporary, and the LOF aka Gehenna is eternal.

Why?, because Revelation says that Hades will be destroyed in the LOF, thus they are not the same place. Gehenna (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/02-hell-NT.php) is also identified as being eternal "were the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched", so it must refer to the LOF.

The closest thing to hell in the OT is "sheol (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/01-hell-OT.php)". There is enough evidence in the OT to conclude that it does not mean simply grave or pit, but refers to a shadowy underworld, (try Isaiah 13 where it speaks of the dead being "stirred up"). It has a purgatorial nature, and this is consistent with the NT description of Hades (Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16).

The LOF is mentioned only once in the OT, but once is enough. Try Isaiah 66, where they look upon the corpses of the wicked. This cess-pool of the dead is even quoted by Jesus when he speaks of Gehenna, so we know by this and the context of Isaiah 66, that they are both speaking of eternal hell.

No one goes to eternal hell for not being a Christian, they are raised up in the second Resurrection of the dead (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/18-resurrection-judgment.php), and judged by their works (Matthew 25), some will receive eternal life (of course by this point they will aknowledge Christ as Savior etc).

Lastly, at the 2nd advent, there will be a spiritual fire unleashed upon the earth, that will torment the wicked and burn away all unrighteousness. This is often confused with or substituted with the other hells. Often it is used to support a hell of eternal torment. I argue that when the scriptures are rightly divided by dispensation, they support a form of annihilationism, wherein the wicked continue on as lifeless thoughtless corpses (spiritual bodies) in the LOF.

Its amazing that when you break things down, reject religious traditions, and go back to the original languages, the bible is amazingly fair-minded, consistent, and informative on this and other subjects.

[Christa]

Its amazing that when you break things down, reject religious traditions, and go back to the original languages, the bible is amazingly fair-minded, consistent, and informative on this and other subjects.

:deal:

[Christa]

But the flames of torment didn't become a revelation until Jesus preached it.

:flaming:

[gharfish]

The dead Pharisee in the parable with Lazarus is probably trapped in Tartarus with the other demons. See 2 Peter 2:4

But gharfish, I don't understand why you think Daniel 12:1-2 teaches annihilationism. The passage could obviously be a little more clear, but I don't see any good reason to reject the idea that the wicked will live eternally in shame.Peter borrows the word Tartarus, which is a foreign concept when applied to S/heol up until now (then), and it appears only once in the NT. You probably know that. The rich man speaks to Father Abraham from wherever it is he is in S/sheol.

I didn't say that Daniel 12-1-2 teaches annihilationism; I did say it is consistent with conditional immortality. It doesn't say one way or another whether people (souls) will not / can not be / are not fully destroyable (ea. the same from God's perspective).

That is why I went to Isaiah 66 as well to look for more answers to this question from the OT scriptures. Jesus quotes from this chapter to communicate some keys things to His hearers as to what the lost to God can expect in the otherworld Hell. It's an earthly comparison, just like the valley of Gehenna is and too the deadly volcanic lake that is of The Revelation of Jesus to His disciple John.




>

[gharfish]

..........There is enough evidence in the OT to conclude that it does not mean simply grave or pit, but refers to a shadowy underworld, (try Isaiah 13 where it speaks of the dead being "stirred up"). It has a purgatorial nature, and this is consistent with the NT description of Hades (Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16).

..........I argue that when the scriptures are rightly divided by dispensation, they support a form of annihilationism, wherein the wicked continue on as lifeless thoughtless corpses (spiritual bodies) in the LOF.

Its amazing that when you break things down, reject religious traditions, and go back to the original languages, the bible is amazingly fair-minded, consistent, and informative on this and other subjects.I read your online article. I don't understand why you think that the damned are reduced to unconciousness but they remain in existence as dead "spiritual bodies." What do you mean by spiritual ? What do you mean by using body, added to that word/term ?

Also, how is it that Hades, which is Sheol (as a place) in Jesus' parable, is somehow purgatorial in nature ? Who all are being purged there, do you think, and of what ? The rich man's guilt before God remains, no matter what he does or how much or long he lives on and suffers. He is without a body, we need to remember, as are all the people in S/sheol.

[Cupofwrath.com]

I read your online article. I don't understand why you think that the damned are reduced to unconciousness but they remain in existence as dead "spiritual bodies." What do you mean by spiritual ? What do you mean by using body, added to that word/term ?

Also, how is it that Hades, which is Sheol (as a place) in Jesus' parable, is somehow purgatorial in nature ? Who all are being purged there, do you think, and of what ? The rich man's guilt before God remains, no matter what he does or how much or long he lives on and suffers. He is without a body, we need to remember, as are all the people in S/sheol.

The concept of spiritual bodies comes mostly from the Resurrection of the dead (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/15-resurrection-nature.php), that they will raised into spiritual or angelic bodies, not flesh bodies. Angels actually have a form that is sometimes described in scripture, similar to glowing metal and being radiant. In 1st Corinthians 15 Paul goes into the nature of the Resurrection of the Dead more than anywhere else.

Sheol is purgatorial in nature, and there is a verse in Ezekiel that describes the "punishment for iniquities resting on the bones" of the guilty (ezekiel 32.27). This is similar to the rich man in Luke 16. However when I use the term purgatorial I mean that they simply reap their fruit of their ways, they are not purged of or forgiven anything. However, in the second resurrection of the dead, which is the resurrection of judgment (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/18-resurrection-judgment.php)or judgment day, all the non-believers will be raised up out of Sheol/Hades and judged according to their deeds (see Revelation 20 and Matthew 25). Some will be forgiven, and received into the eternal kingdom.

Much of what I am saying about spiritual bodies in the LOF, can be inferred from the timing involved, because if the dead are raised into spiritual bodies, then the bodies that are described in Gehenna, aka LOF, must be spiritual, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul [psuche] and body in hell [Gehenna]” (Matthew 10.28 KJV). Gehenna will be like a cess-pool or garbage pit of evil, but on a spiritual level. Second, Jesus says of Gehenna, that the worm never dies and the fire is never quenched", which a flesh body cannot endure, and lastly peoples bodies and skeletons break down after they die, so unless the dead are raised into new flesh bodies, their could not be flesh in the LOF.

If you have to time you might want to read the whole book (its free), because it is cumulative and builds upon the earlier chapters (which is why I did a book as opposed to a bunch of articles:smile:).

[Obsidian]

I'll probably look at your book later, but I don't understand why you would suggest that unbelievers will be allowed into God's kingdom. The Bible seems to teach pretty clearly that no one's works can fully save them from spiritual "death," and that if salvation could come from the Law, Jesus would not have come to earth.

[NormATive]

Theres alot of confusion about hell in the bible, which why I wrote a book about this subject (and the resurrection of the dead which is intertwined).

I've read it. It's a good read and I would recommend it to those who espouse a belief in the eternal torment of the physical body.

My conclusions are as follows: There are two identifiable hell-like places in the bible. Sheol aka Hades, and the Lake of Fire aka Gehenna. You can lock in these connections in the NT. Sheol or Hades is temporary, and the LOF aka Gehenna is eternal.

Why?, because Revelation says that Hades will be destroyed in the LOF, thus they are not the same place. Gehenna (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/02-hell-NT.php) is also identified as being eternal "were the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched", so it must refer to the LOF.

The closest thing to hell in the OT is "sheol (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/01-hell-OT.php)". There is enough evidence in the OT to conclude that it does not mean simply grave or pit, but refers to a shadowy underworld, (try Isaiah 13 where it speaks of the dead being "stirred up"). It has a purgatorial nature, and this is consistent with the NT description of Hades (Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16).

The LOF is mentioned only once in the OT, but once is enough. Try Isaiah 66, where they look upon the corpses of the wicked. This cess-pool of the dead is even quoted by Jesus when he speaks of Gehenna, so we know by this and the context of Isaiah 66, that they are both speaking of eternal hell.

Here's where I slightly disagree. I am Jewish by birth and can tell you that eternal punishment is not part of Jewish teaching. It certainly is not in the Torah. There are references to Hades, but only in the Gemarra written under Greek influence (Hellenization) where pagan ideas were incorporated in both Christianity and Judaism.

No one goes to eternal hell for not being a Christian, they are raised up in the second Resurrection of the dead (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/18-resurrection-judgment.php), and judged by their works (Matthew 25), some will receive eternal life (of course by this point they will aknowledge Christ as Savior etc).

This judgment of works is straight out of Jewish teaching. Only, those who are obedient in fulfilling the intent of the Law shall partake in the world that is to come (it's right here on Earth). The Judge, however, is G-d, not Jesus.

Lastly, at the 2nd advent, there will be a spiritual fire unleashed upon the earth, that will torment the wicked and burn away all unrighteousness. This is often confused with or substituted with the other hells. Often it is used to support a hell of eternal torment. I argue that when the scriptures are rightly divided by dispensation, they support a form of annihilationism, wherein the wicked continue on as lifeless thoughtless corpses (spiritual bodies) in the LOF.

I like this interpretation. It makes more sense than an eternal barbecue pit.

Its amazing that when you break things down, reject religious traditions, and go back to the original languages, the bible is amazingly fair-minded, consistent, and informative on this and other subjects.

Christians are taught to never question traditional interpretations. This is a weakness, in my opinion.

Thanks for your input - I enjoyed reading your on-line book.

NORM

[NormATive]

The dead Pharisee in the parable with Lazarus is probably trapped in Tartarus with the other demons. See 2 Peter 2:4

But gharfish, I don't understand why you think Daniel 12:1-2 teaches annihilationism. The passage could obviously be a little more clear, but I don't see any good reason to reject the idea that the wicked will live eternally in shame.

Do you see the problem in your first sentence? A parable is not a true story. It is meant to illustrate an idea. By insisting that it is a true story, you inadvertently focus on the wrong thing. What is the parable teaching us about our relationship to G-d? This is the more important thing.

Daniel teaches annihilation because that is what Judaism teaches - the wicked will be utterly destroyed. This is the meaning of "death."

NORM

[Obsidian]

It may be what Judaism teaches now, but you are completely begging the question when you assume that Jews in Jesus's time believed in annihilationism. If they did, they why did Jesus use a parable that contradicted their beliefs?

And I don't think the fact that it's a parable means anything. None of Jesus's other parables use particularly unrealistic narratives.

[RBerman]

Do you see the problem in your first sentence? A parable is not a true story. It is meant to illustrate an idea.
That's true, but a parable illustrates an idea by a plausible story. It would rather take away from the messsage if Jesus said things like, "Just like God gives Martians spaceships, God will take care of you too." The message loses its force if God doesn't really give Martians spaceships, no?

[NormATive]

That's true, but a parable illustrates an idea by a plausible story. It would rather take away from the messsage if Jesus said things like, "Just like God gives Martians spaceships, God will take care of you too." The message loses its force if God doesn't really give Martians spaceships, no?

You don't really understand parables! It's OK, though, because you don't have the Talmud which is chock full of parables. Some have plausible, but usually highly exaggerated, circumstances. And some of them are wildly fantastical - much like the Lazarus story. The reason they are so off-beat is so that normal people won't misconstrue them as historic anecdotes.

NORM

[NormATive]

It may be what Judaism teaches now, but you are completely begging the question when you assume that Jews in Jesus's time believed in annihilationism. If they did, they why did Jesus use a parable that contradicted their beliefs?

Perhaps because it was fashionable in those days to refer to the book of Enoch, a mystical non-canonical Jewish writing that was apocalyptic in nature.

And I don't think the fact that it's a parable means anything. None of Jesus's other parables use particularly unrealistic narratives.

Yes it does. A parable is a STORY - usually with exaggerated or absurd circumstances - in order to teach a DEEPER truth. You guys are straining at gnats while missing the obvious.

NORM

[RBerman]

You don't really understand parables! It's OK, though, because you don't have the Talmud which is chock full of parables. Some have plausible, but usually highly exaggerated, circumstances. And some of them are wildly fantastical - much like the Lazarus story. The reason they are so off-beat is so that normal people won't misconstrue them as historic anecdotes.
Oh, I understand parables just fine. Jesus' parables are uniformly reasonable and familiar to his audience, not outlandish.

[Obsidian]

That's true, but a parable illustrates an idea by a plausible story. It would rather take away from the messsage if Jesus said things like, "Just like God gives Martians spaceships, God will take care of you too." The message loses its force if God doesn't really give Martians spaceships, no?

LOL

:lol: :b_evil: :cheshire: :lol: :b_evil: :lol: :b_evil:

best post ever

[Cupofwrath.com]

Luke 16 never really identifies the story as a parable, and I don't take it as one, though I do interpret his torment to be on a spiritual not physical level.

Obsidian:

I'll probably look at your book later, but I don't understand why you would suggest that unbelievers will be allowed into God's kingdom. The Bible seems to teach pretty clearly that no one's works can fully save them from spiritual "death," and that if salvation could come from the Law, Jesus would not have come to earth.

Works cannot save one from spiritual "death", only Christ, otherwise grace would not be grace. However, spiritual death is not eternal damnation. The unredeemed descend into Sheol/Hades, which is to enter into spiritual death (though they are already spiritually dead in a sense, through sin, so it is a form of spiritual death).

Notice in Revelation 20.11-15, that "death" and Hades give up the dead that are in them, and then they are judged by works. So they are released from the hold of spiritual death which has power over them through sin. They are released in the second resurrection. This is why Daniel 12.2 says, many or the multitude that sleep in the dust..., because they are released from spiritual death, as symbolized by the dust of the earth (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/08-hell-heaven-gateways.php).

In contrast the redeemed do not enter spiritual death, but have eternal life through Christ. In fact Christ himself descended into spiritual death, and defeated it, tasting it for us and resurrecting from it, so that we are saved from it. Click here for a further study about the natures of spiritual life and death (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/06-spiritual-life-death.php).

There is no salvation through the Law, and never was. The Law provides no means of redemption. God is merciful, and may have honored blood sacrifice, but the blood itself could not forgive sin, and now Christ has fulfilled the law and been commissioned to judge all mankind,

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad". (1st Corinthians 5.10)

Now let me ask you, would you want to be judged according to your deeds both good and bad, or simply rewarded for bearing fruit in Christ? The ones who are called to know the truth are so incredibly blessed compared to those who will be judged by works ( the messages to the churches in Revelation is a pretty good list of the blessings), but ultimately some of the nonbelievers will receive eternal life, "Then the King will say to those on His right, `Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matthew 25.34).

[Cupofwrath.com]

NormATive:
Here's where I slightly disagree. I am Jewish by birth and can tell you that eternal punishment is not part of Jewish teaching. It certainly is not in the Torah. There are references to Hades, but only in the Gemarra written under Greek influence (Hellenization) where pagan ideas were incorporated in both Christianity and Judaism.

Hell in the OT is basically referred to as Sheol (mentioned a few time in the Torah), or sometimes the literal "pit". Theres debate about the meaning of Sheol (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/01-hell-OT.php). I argue in Ch.1 that it refers to an underworld of sorts. As far as an eternal hell (after the resurrection of the dead), the only place I've found is Isaiah 66.

Christians are taught to never question traditional interpretations. This is a weakness, in my opinion.

Thanks for your input - I enjoyed reading your on-line book.

NORM

Thanks for taking a look at it and maybe you'll get into the NT more, (the first Christians were Israelites). I actually started out studying the OT more (my preference), and then only after I got fully grounded in it did the NT start to click, and I understood the concept of Messiah and saw how the story of Christ is repeated over and over again in the OT. ITs more foundational in my opinion, whereas the NT is like a capstone.

[NormATive]

Oh, I understand parables just fine. Jesus' parables are uniformly reasonable and familiar to his audience, not outlandish.

I disagree - particularly if you are going to insist on gleaning "true facts" from them. The very nature of a parable is that it is a STORY. It is fiction. It's purpose is to teach a lesson of some sort, not to describe real life or history.

NORM

[NormATive]

As far as an eternal hell (after the resurrection of the dead), the only place I've found is Isaiah 66.

Are you referring to the last verse in that text? How is it that "dead bodies" can "suffer." This is all a visual in my interpretation. Isaiah is making an exclamation point: See! They're all dead (those who rebelled against G-d), and their rotting corpses (corpses are dead) will be eternally eaten by worms and burned by fire (metaphors of destruction - overkill to make the point).

and maybe you'll get into the NT more, (the first Christians were Israelites). I actually started out studying the OT more (my preference), and then only after I got fully grounded in it did the NT start to click, and I understood the concept of Messiah and saw how the story of Christ is repeated over and over again in the OT. ITs more foundational in my opinion, whereas the NT is like a capstone.

I've read the Bible through in its entirety over 2o times. My father would have us read every morning in the Old Testament and in the evening in the New Testament. He used The Daily Bread as a guide. We did this from the time I was 6 until I left home at 17. I continued the practice beginning again at age 30 until about 42 or so using my own method.

At about 43 I began studying Hebrew and reading the Talmud along side the Tanakh. I have large portions of the Old and New Testament memorized. I can recite the entire Sermon on the Mount, for example and used to teach a Bible study gleaned from it.

I also go to see a live recitation of the book of Mark on occasion performed by an actor I know: http://www.wayneturney.20m.com/stmark.htm. It was meant to be spoken orally, and when you experience the Gospel in this manner, it really comes alive. The rest of the Gospels don't work so well orally since they were copied from Mark.

So, I have a pretty good grasp of the Bible thematically, although one can imagine several disparate themes when you think about it.

Creation / Fall / Redemption pretty much sums it up in my opinion.

NORM

[RBerman]

I disagree - particularly if you are going to insist on gleaning "true facts" from them. The very nature of a parable is that it is a STORY. It is fiction. It's purpose is to teach a lesson of some sort, not to describe real life or history.
I don't dispute that. Go back and read my last two posts again.

[NormATive]

if Jesus said things like, "Just like God gives Martians spaceships, God will take care of you too." The message loses its force if God doesn't really give Martians spaceships, no?

If Martians helped sell the point, it would work just fine. This is what you are not getting. The story doesn't have to be true. In fact, the more exaggerated the story, the more memorable it is.

In the Talmud a story (parable) is told about when Abraham was a young boy in Ur. His father was the guardian of all the gods of the village. These gods were represented by stone idols and were placed on pedestals making a circle in one of the rooms in their house.

One day Abram took a hammer and smashed one of the idols.

When Abrams' father questioned him on who did it, Abram replied; "I don't know - ask them" referring to the other idols.

Now, this story is entirely fiction, but is used to illustrate a point. The visual of Abraham smashing idols arranged in a circle in his home is absurd, but you don't easily forget it.

That is a parable.

NORM

[NormATive]

I don't dispute that. Go back and read my last two posts again.

Actually, this is getting quite off topic, so this will be the last post on parables. If you wish to start another thread on parables, be my guest.

Someone was using the parable of Lazarus to make a factual statement regarding the nature of hell.

My point is that you can't do that. A parable, and you just indicated you agree, is by nature a made up story to illustrate a point.

Therefore, using a parable about Lazarus in hell is not a good argument.

NORM

[RBerman]

It's just as well it's your last post, since it doesn't say anything that hasn't been responded to already.

[Christa]

Oh, I understand parables just fine. Jesus' parables are uniformly reasonable and familiar to his audience, not outlandish.

Mind you, there are other copycat gospels like "The Gospel According to Thomas" that rightly didn't make the cut. .

The Gospel of Thomas

These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
1. And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

The book has "The Gospel According to Matthew" emblazoned across the top of page one. On what grounds should I reject this attribution?

:huh:

[RBerman]

Christa, why are you bringing in posts from other thread? What on earth are you trying to accomplish?

[Christa]

What on earth are you trying to accomplish?

Oh, I understand parables just fine.

:shy:

[Christa]

What on earth are you trying to accomplish?

"Whoever discovers the interpretation of...sayings will not taste death."
"Whoever discovers the interpretation...will not taste death."
"Whoever discovers...will not taste death."
"Whoever...will not taste death."
"...will not taste death."
"...interpretation..."
"...not...death."
:rando:
Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

[Cupofwrath.com]

NormATive:

Are you referring to the last verse in that text? How is it that "dead bodies" can "suffer." This is all a visual in my interpretation. Isaiah is making an exclamation point: See! They're all dead (those who rebelled against G-d), and their rotting corpses (corpses are dead) will be eternally eaten by worms and burned by fire (metaphors of destruction - overkill to make the point).

I don't know how "corpses" can suffer, which is why I use that verse to argue against eternal torment. My point is that it is a clear reference to Gehenna aka the Lake of Fire (worm never dies and fire is never quenched). Its the only place in the OT that mentions an "eternal hell", but just because it exists forever, doesn't mean that the people suffer forever.

[RBerman]

"Whoever discovers the interpretation of...sayings will not taste death."
"Whoever discovers the interpretation...will not taste death."
"Whoever discovers...will not taste death."
"Whoever...will not taste death."
"...will not taste death."
"...interpretation..."
"...not...death."

:rando:

Luke 9:27 "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."
OK. Just making sure you weren't trying to make a substantive comment to enhance the discussion.

[Cupofwrath.com]

Normative:

The rest of the Gospels don't work so well orally since they were copied from Mark.

I can see that you don't fully accept the NT as the Word of God, and that is what I was referring to, not that you are ignorant about it. Its basically pointless to debate scripture with an adherent of Judaism, since we're not working from or giving equal crediblitly to the same set of texts.

[gharfish]

The Hell was prepared for the devil and his fellow rebellious angels. It was created, a permament place for them.




>

[gharfish]

:shy: Speak up ! You can dew it !


>

[Christa]

Speak up ! You can dew it !
>

The Hell was prepared for the devil and his fellow rebellious angels. It was created, a permament place for them.
>

Please, try to actually give a good argument and not contradict yourself in the same post, it really doesn't make you look good at all.

:rasberry:

[NormATive]

NormATive:
Are you referring to the last verse in that text? How is it that "dead bodies" can "suffer." This is all a visual in my interpretation. Isaiah is making an exclamation point: See! They're all dead (those who rebelled against G-d), and their rotting corpses (corpses are dead) will be eternally eaten by worms and burned by fire (metaphors of destruction - overkill to make the point).

I don't know how "corpses" can suffer, which is why I use that verse to argue against eternal torment. My point is that it is a clear reference to Gehenna aka the Lake of Fire (worm never dies and fire is never quenched). Its the only place in the OT that mentions an "eternal hell", but just because it exists forever, doesn't mean that the people suffer forever.

The problem with this interpretation is that Gehenna - in the original Hebrew (ge hinnom) is a real place:

"And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem, and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward." Joshua 15: 8. "And he (Josiah) defiled Tophet, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch." II Kings 23: 10.Also, the passage you selected, I believe, does not employ the word gehenna translated as hell, but rather, sheol (which, when Hellenized, takes on a similar meaning to the Greek word Hades, or "Underworld."), as ge hinnom in the Old Testament always refers to a physical place, not a metaphorical place. I will have to look this up in my JPS Tanakh which has the Hebrew across the page from the English translation. I could be wrong, as I know that the un-canonical Book of Enoch has Sheol divided into four sections with varying degrees of punishment. Again, I must point out that the BOE was not accepted by Jewish leaders. It remained an apocryphal, but popular diversion among the folks. In Jesus' time, Enoch reached a kind of "tabloid" prominence.

Gehenna is translated as hell in the New Testament only a dozen times, and it is a mistake because it blends Greek mythology into the real story.

Ge Hinnom (the valley of Hinnom) was a place where worshipers of Molech sat an idol in the shape of a man with outstretched arms and the head of a calf. In these arms, worshipers sacrificed animals and even children by burning them alive (weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth anyone?). The "drums of Molech" were used to cover the screams of the children being burned alive.

After the Israelites cleared these heathens from the site, it was declared "toxic" and it became a garbage pit where unused portions of carcasses and the bodies of criminals and other waste from the city were burned continuously to keep the offal stench from rising toward the city. A sewer ran through it which was perpetually on fire ( a "lake of fire").

This pit existed a few miles southeast of Jerusalem in Jesus' day. It is this "lake of fire" that Jesus is probably referring to in the biblical references.

...Gehenna was a well-known valley, near Jerusalem, in which the Jews in their idolatrous days had sacrificed their children to the idol Moloch, in consequence of which it was condemned to receive the offal and refuse and sewage of the city, and into which the bodies of malefactors were cast and where to destroy the odor and pestilential influences, continual fires were kept burning. Here fire, smoke, worms bred by the corruption, and other repulsive features, rendered the place a horrible one, in the eyes of the Jews. It was locality with which they were as well acquainted as they were with any place in or around the city. The valley was sometimes called Tophet, according to Schleusner, from Toph, a drum, because drums were beat during the idolatrous rites, but Adam Clarke says in consequence of the fact that Moloch was hollow, and heated, and children were placed in its arms, and burn to death; the word Tophet he says, meaning fire stove; but Prof. Stuart thinks the name derived from "Toph, to vomit the loathing." After these horrible practices, King Josiah polluted the place and rendered it repulsive. -Dr. HansenIt's quite easy to see how this word became corrupted by Hellenized Jews and Christians eager to promote the idea of eternal reward and eternal punishment. They combined the Greek stories of Hades with the common phrases used to describe ge hinnom; "lake of fire," "where the worm dieth not," the "pit," etc...

NORM

[NormATive]

Normative:

The rest of the Gospels don't work so well orally since they were copied from Mark.

I can see that you don't fully accept the NT as the Word of God, and that is what I was referring to, not that you are ignorant about it. Its basically pointless to debate scripture with an adherent of Judaism, since we're not working from or giving equal crediblitly to the same set of texts.

I don't accept any of the Bible, nor any other work of man as "Word of G-d." It has nothing to do with my being Jewish. This doesnt' make my interpretations not worth listening to. I was schooled in Christian doctrine a lot longer than I have Judaism. The words on the page are still words whether you believe they were dictated by G-d or written by men.

Therefore, discussion with me doesn't make it pointless - it makes it interesting.

NORM

[Cupofwrath.com]

NormATive:

"in consequence of which it was condemned to receive the offal and refuse and sewage of the city, and into which the bodies of malefactors were cast and where to destroy the odor and pestilential influences, continual fires were kept burning. Here fire, smoke, worms bred by the corruption, and other repulsive features, rendered the place a horrible one, in the eyes of the Jews... - Dr. Hansen

Given this description, you can see why the name for this real place outside of Jerusalem might be employed to describe a future eternal hell.

Jesus says, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell (Gehenna)" (Matthew 10.28) Thus the name Gehenna is employed to describe a future eternal hell, that will exist after judgment day.

As far as Isaiah 66.22+, neither the valley of Ge Hinnom or Sheol are used in that passage, but it does make reference to a "new heavens and new earth", as well as the fire not being quenched, so eschatologically we can lock it in as a Lake of Fire reference. Literal Gehenna is long since extinguished, and death and hades will be no more.

Also, I assumed that you practiced some kind of Orthodox Judaism because you refrain from spelling God, I guess not.

[gharfish]

:rasberry:What do you want to say !? Come on !


>

[gharfish]

You don't really understand parables! It's OK, though, because you don't have the Talmud which is chock full of parables. Some have plausible, but usually highly exaggerated, circumstances. And some of them are wildly fantastical - much like the Lazarus story. The reason they are so off-beat is so that normal people won't misconstrue them as historic anecdotes.

NORMJesus' parable that involves the godly beggar, Lazarus, and the unrepentent and faithless and unloving and selfish and probably greedy! unnamed rich man, is also "wildly fantastical" in nature ? Is it ? If so; how so, do you think ?

Some of it is not to be taken literally, but all of Jesus' teachings--even in parables (yes!) convey the actual truth. Surely no one will stand up and say that Jesus' parables are deceptive in nature, or just sloppy about what is real (?!) That parable is not too hard to figure out. I bet that you, as a Jew by birth (right ?) can tell me pretty well what the Jewish hearer, the educated and uneducated alike at that time, would likely have made of Jesus' parable there, as recorded by Luke. The punchline is the hard part. Another prediction. It can be understood in looking back.

No, forget that. Not as important as this:

What do you, this day-- today--make of it, yourself ? Forget the closing punchline of the parable.

Of the rest, what is metaphorical, from Jesus, and what is not ?


>

[Christa]

Some of it is not to be taken literally, but all of Jesus' teachings--even in parables (yes!) convey the actual truth.

Of the rest, what is metaphorical, from Jesus, and what is not ?
>

Metaphor in analytic philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor_in_philosophy)
In the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy, in particular, the philosophy of language, metaphor has attracted interest because it does not conform to accepted truth conditional semantics, the conditions which determine whether or not a statement is true. Taken literally, the statement 'Juliet is the sun' (from Romeo and Juliet) is false, if not nonsensical, yet, taken metaphorically, it is meaningful and may be true, but in a sense which is far from clear.

See also:

Therapeutic_metaphor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_metaphor)
Conceptual_metaphor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor)

Synecdote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche)
pars pro toto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pars_pro_toto)

Framing_(social_sciences) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences) )
Reframing_(social_sciences) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reframing)

Parody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody)
Self-parody (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-parody)

So was it meant to be a metaphor with psychological implications for freeing us in this world, or in death, raising us to another? Just a thought.

[NormATive]

NormATive:

"in consequence of which it was condemned to receive the offal and refuse and sewage of the city, and into which the bodies of malefactors were cast and where to destroy the odor and pestilential influences, continual fires were kept burning. Here fire, smoke, worms bred by the corruption, and other repulsive features, rendered the place a horrible one, in the eyes of the Jews... - Dr. Hansen

Given this description, you can see why the name for this real place outside of Jerusalem might be employed to describe a future eternal hell.

Or, a perfect visual reference for a metaphor about spiritual death.

Also, I assumed that you practiced some kind of Orthodox Judaism because you refrain from spelling God, I guess not.

Nope. I do it out of respect for my Jewish brothers and sisters who ARE Orthodox.

NORM

[NormATive]

Jesus' parable that involves the godly beggar, Lazarus, and the unrepentent and faithless and unloving and selfish and probably greedy! unnamed rich man, is also "wildly fantastical" in nature ? Is it ? If so; how so, do you think ?

Yes, it is wildly fantastic because it describes a dead man looking up into heaven. That's physically impossible - forget the fact that there is no place on earth called hell and no place floating in the clouds called heaven.

Some of it is not to be taken literally, but all of Jesus' teachings--even in parables (yes!) convey the actual truth. Surely no one will stand up and say that Jesus' parables are deceptive in nature, or just sloppy about what is real (?!)

I guess it is more difficult than I thought to explain an Eastern way of thinking to people indoctrinated with Western thinking. The individual details of the parable are immaterial to the lesson that is being taught. I don't know how to make that more plain.

But I understand. Christians who base the entirety of their faith on the words in a book are reluctant to admit that ANYTHING is not the absolute truth - even parables that are intentionally NOT true (in the details of the story).

I don't think you will ever understand this concept. But, I gave it my best try.

That parable is not too hard to figure out. I bet that you, as a Jew by birth (right ?) can tell me pretty well what the Jewish hearer, the educated and uneducated alike at that time, would likely have made of Jesus' parable there, as recorded by Luke. The punchline is the hard part. Another prediction. It can be understood in looking back.

It's not the message of the parable we were talking about. You and others think that the details of Jesus' Lazarus story is literally or substantively true and informative about the nature of heaven and an apologetic for an eternal hell.

I do not.

NORM

[NormATive]

Thanks Christa for giving us something a little different from the back and forth in this discussion.

If you pay attention, your meaning is crystal clear!

Pretty clever, actually.

NORM

NORM

[Christa]

Thanks Christa for giving us something a little different from the back and forth in this discussion.

If you pay attention, your meaning is crystal clear!

Pretty clever, actually.

NORM

This is all Jesus ever did...point to the truth through parable and parody.



:hehe:

[gharfish]

:hehe:They wouldn't let you call yourself Christ!, so you became Overlord!, and now you are calling yourself Christa.

I figured it out. You go on ignore, Christ!a.




>

[NormATive]

I'm not hearing a loud chorus of support for the belief in a physical hell - a place of eternal torment as interpreted in English Bibles from the words of Jesus.

This tells me two things:

1. Hell is a concept that defies basic logic and what we understand as the nature of G-d. In short, there isn't much buy-in among modern Christians.

2. We really don't trust our translations of the Bible.

If this is the case - there is no hell - what does that tell us about our responsibilities on this Earth?

How does that inform our approach to evangelism?

NORM

[gharfish]

I'm not hearing a loud chorus of support for the belief in a physical hell - a place of eternal torment as interpreted in English Bibles from the words of Jesus.

This tells me two things:

1. Hell is a concept that defies basic logic and what we understand as the nature of G-d. In short, there isn't much buy-in among modern Christians.

2. We really don't trust our translations of the Bible.

If this is the case - there is no hell - what does that tell us about our responsibilities on this Earth?

How does that inform our approach to evangelism?

NORMAre you evangelistic ?

Of course there is a 'real'/existing permanent Hell for the Christian believer. Why ? Because Jesus Christ taught of this reality, openly. It was made in the first place for to confine and punish the rebellious angel, who is titled the "satan" or Devil--a leader, and all the other angels ("demons"/"unclean spirits") that are and have likewise been in rebellion to God for an exceedingly long (but unknown) period of time.

Now, who is "we" as in we don't trust our translations of the Bible ?

I do think that Hell as a reality is believed in by the great majority of Christains today, as they should ! Where has it gone ? Nowhere. Haven't you noticed how very often it is the topic of conversation in Apologetics 301 ?

Yes, the essential doctrine is well in place (in the US anyway!) as:
~the traditional view which is the *majority view, that is called here "eternal torment in Hell" ~ and there is the minority view of "annihilationalism" (see our Tweb profile tag: Various). I hold this latter view as biblically scriptural and 'refine' it, specifically, to the term: conditional immortality.

Perhaps you are seeing in this Unorthodox Theology thread of your's a third view that is gaining popularity among many; a small number of Christians and a good many Christian(other)s, which is called universalism or universal salvation ? It may involve a purgatorial place of suffering, "inbetween" Heaven and Hell.....that is not the OT S/sheol, BTW. The soul (person) suffers for/is purged of their own sins in this place and once God deems thsi sufficient they can go on to Heaven, 'saved.' I have noticed that several people who ID themselves as "Christian(other) are currently promoting the universal salvation view here on TWeb. They are not RC, but the Roman Catholic Church still quite officially believes and teaches of purgatory.

I say this boldly: There is no sciptural support for the reality of a purgatorial state of any kind; only sheol-hades. S/heol is not ahellish place, necessarily. Some do suffer there, as they await the final jugement (The Rev., ch. 20: 11-15).Christians must hold firmly to what Jesus actually taught, and responsibly *stop there, and not introduce--add--traditions (like the RCC purgatory).




>

[Bernie]

In the Anglo-American tradition of analytic philosophy, in particular, the philosophy of language, metaphor has attracted interest because it does not conform to accepted truth conditional semantics, the conditions which determine whether or not a statement is true. Taken literally, the statement 'Juliet is the sun' (from Romeo and Juliet) is false, if not nonsensical, yet, taken metaphorically, it is meaningful and may be true, but in a sense which is far from clear.
Precisely. Literal particulars (nations, fire, individuals, places, bushes, mountains, unblemished animals, etc., etc.) strewn across the backdrop of history are used by the Father re the inspired OT prophets--and Jesus' teachings use the same metaphorical correspondences--as an artist uses paint spread on canvas to produce higher meaning. Hence, orthodox interpretive methodology, which is based on primarily a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, never fully reaches the higher picture in God's word.

It takes something special to get past the simplistic 'blab it 'n grab it' mentality so prevalent in organized Christianity today. No one seems able to do simple math...easy believism says blab it and get a free ticket to heaven, while Peter says the righteous are saved with difficulty, Jesus speaks to difficulty re overcomers, and Paul is granted to see a remnant saved and a race necessarily run. These are only a few of the apparent contradictions in the literalist's doctrine.

The eternality of hell is easily proved as true, but humans dedicated to eternal torture is an imposition on God's grace by a religious organization so cold in spirit it no longer has the faith to accept anything beyond what the senses reveal. Where is the sanctified church today?

[NormATive]

Are you evangelistic ?

No. I believe G-d does a pretty good job of PR without my help.

Of course there is a 'real'/existing permanent Hell for the Christian believer. Why ? Because Jesus Christ taught of this reality, openly. It was made in the first place for to confine and punish the rebellious angel, who is titled the "satan" or Devil--a leader, and all the other angels ("demons"/"unclean spirits") that are and have likewise been in rebellion to God for an exceedingly long (but unknown) period of time.

I'm not convinced Jesus was being literal. He was continuing a parable in my understanding of the scripture you reference.

Now, who is "we" as in we don't trust our translations of the Bible ?

Oh, just about every biblical scholar I can think of.

I do think that Hell as a reality is believed in by the great majority of Christains today, as they should ! Where has it gone ? Nowhere. Haven't you noticed how very often it is the topic of conversation in Apologetics 301 ?

I avoid Apologetics 101. I just get in trouble because Christians there don't really want to debate what they believe. They only want confirmation of what they already believe.

Yes, the essential doctrine is well in place (in the US anyway!) as:
~the traditional view which is the *majority view, that is called here "eternal torment in Hell" ~ and there is the minority view of "annihilationalism" (see our Tweb profile tag: Various). I hold this latter view as biblically scriptural and 'refine' it, specifically, to the term: conditional immortality.

If I had to believe in hell, I would ascribe to the annihilation view.

Perhaps you are seeing in this Unorthodox Theology thread of your's a third view that is gaining popularity among many; a small number of Christians and a good many Christian(other)s, which is called universalism or universal salvation ? It may involve a purgatorial place of suffering, "inbetween" Heaven and Hell.....that is not the OT S/sheol, BTW. The soul (person) suffers for/is purged of their own sins in this place and once God deems thsi sufficient they can go on to Heaven, 'saved.' I have noticed that several people who ID themselves as "Christian(other) are currently promoting the universal salvation view here on TWeb. They are not RC, but the Roman Catholic Church still quite officially believes and teaches of purgatory.

I am universalist in that I see no reason for a supernatural salvation from our natural being. G-d created us this way - warts and all. It is our responsibility, as I believe Jesus taught, to rise above our pre-evolutionary self.

I say this boldly: There is no sciptural support for the reality of a purgatorial state of any kind; only sheol-hades. S/heol is not ahellish place, necessarily. Some do suffer there, as they await the final jugement (The Rev., ch. 20: 11-15).Christians must hold firmly to what Jesus actually taught, and responsibly *stop there, and not introduce--add--traditions (like the RCC purgatory).

I agree. There's enough mythology in the world.

NORM




>[/quote]

[will33har]

In another thread in Unorthodox Theology, the idea of Universal Salvation is being debated. The opponents of Universal Salvation contend that if one doesn't "believe," one is tossed into a Lake of Fire. A burning River of Fire where those who did not hear the Gospel of Christ - infants included - will be tormented for all of eternity by a "just" G-d where there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth." BTW, I realize that there are many at T-Web who do not believe in a physical hell. I am interested in those who DO believe in a physical hell. My challenge is for them to read this paper and defend their position in light of Dr. Hansen's revelations. NORM Point of clarification. I do believe in an eternal hell, not a physical one, but a spiritual one. Does that qualify? about this....A burning River of Fire where those who did not hear the Gospel of Christ - infants included - will be tormented for all of eternity by a "just" G-d where there will be "weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth." I can't think of many believers in Christ who would claim that 'children', under the age of reason', are thrown in to hell. As for those who have never heard of Christ, there were atleast a few million or so people who had never even heard of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob much less the promise of a messiah before Christ came to earth. I believe the Bible, or atleast early christian history, states that after His crucifiction Jesus decended into 'sheol' / Hades / the grave / hell, Ephesians 4:7-10 and preached His gospel to the inhabitants therein, and also that He conquered Death, Hell, and the Grave, and those who believed were taken up to peradise with Him. There are several other referances that seem to indicate this as well Matthew 10:14-16, Matthew 11:23-25.

This is purely speculation on my part (i.e. I can't back this ATM), though I do have, and can give, some scriptural referances, I DO NOT CLAIM IT TO BE a) a new revelation b) consistant with traditional evangelism/christian theology (as far as I know) or c) truth]


However there is Romans 2:14-15 which indicates even those who have never heard of Jesus or the law of God, but by nature do those things that are in the law, are a witness unto themselves, their conscience bears witness, either for or against them.

The point being, that if God, who does not need the voice of a man but can speak through donkeys, rocks, and trees, can take care of those who didn't hear before, He can certainly take care of those who haven't heard since.

Here is the bad news, It's a noble thing :whistle: to be concerned for those who haven't heard, but you may want to save some concern for yourself, since you have heard, and rejected. [?]

[Cupofwrath.com]

Wil33har:

I can't think of many believers in Christ who would claim that 'children', under the age of reason', are thrown in to hell. As for those who have never heard of Christ, there were atleast a few million or so people who had never even heard of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob much less the promise of a messiah before Christ came to earth.

The problem is that most Christians don't understand that there are two identifiable hells in the bible (though there are more than two Greek and Hebrew words for hell). The first hell (Sheol/Hades) is the wide path that the vast majority of people follow, but the dead will be raised up from there, on judgment day (which is after the millennium).

The tares will be cast into the second hell (http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/30-eternal-torment.php) which is by its nature an eternal place. However, just because it lasts forever does not mean that people will be tormented forever.

[John Goddard]

I say this boldly: There is no sciptural support for the reality of a purgatorial state of any kind; only sheol-hades.

Depends on interpretation.

Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Psalms 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.

Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Etc.

[gharfish]

Depends on interpretation.

Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Psalms 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.

Proverbs 15:24 The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

Etc.What is S/sheol=Hades, JG ? And don't you know that every single time it's in the KJV in the old testament the word "hell" is a mistranslation ? Mistranslation. The word is sheol; period. So, conceptually it must remain *that. "Sorry !" What word is actually the english word for hell; tell me.

You post four verses, "etc." and "depends on interpretation." Quit messing around. Do you just want to have an easy say, and go ?

Well, you have brought up Jude, with great care and effort; I expect you'll next want to show how that particular verse supports....universal salvation. That's your goal. A solid N.T. verse; go.


>

[John Goddard]

What is S/sheol=Hades, JG ? And don't you know that every single time it's in the KJV in the old testament the word "hell" is a mistranslation ? Mistranslation. The word is sheol; period. So, conceptually it must remain *that. "Sorry !" What word is actually the english word for hell; tell me.

You post four verses, "etc." and "depends on interpretation." Quit messing around. Do you just want to have an easy say, and go ?

Sheol is by no means clearly an unconscious state.


JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA: SHEOL (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=614&letter=S&search=sheol)

It's been a matter of interpretation and debate from the beginning.


Well, you have brought up Jude, with great care and effort; I expect you'll next want to show how that particular verse supports....universal salvation. That's your goal. A solid N.T. verse; go.


I don't believe everyone is saved. I believe many have a chance after death in a purgatory.

[gharfish]

Sheol is by no means clearly an unconscious state.No, it isn't; I agree. I never said it wasn't. I have said it was and that the people there are alive. Alive. Conscious. Jesus tells us so. That part of Luke 16: 19-21 cannot be written off as figurative.

So, what does this statement regarding consciousness in Sheol have to do with the material of mine you just quoted !? It's completely off of *that topic.


JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA: SHEOL (http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=614&letter=S&search=sheol)

It's been a matter of interpretation and debate from the beginning. From the beginning ? That entire article was written but 100 years ago by a single man: Emil G. Hirsch. That is a Funk & Wagnalls publication. The last time somebody used that same reformed rabbi as a proof source, it was the now matrixed dragonist who claimed that Yahweh was a real fire breathing dragon.

Why are you not debating but arguing by link ?

You tell me what S/heol=Hades is in your estimation. You can read the OT references to sheol to get there. Just use your old KJV and every time you see the english word "hell" in the OT of that translation know that without even ONE exception that "hell" is a deliberate and/or lazy/convenient irresponsible mistranslation of the Hebrew word: sheol. And by context and such, in each place you find the KJamers substituting hell for sheol (Always!), you can figure stuff out that way about sheol.

In the N.T., Jesus talks one time only about people in Sheol, in a parable in Luke. There the old KJV calls that hell. Wrong. Misleading ! It comes to us, called Hades in Lk., only because the N.T. is written in Greek--Hades is the only Greek word/term that can best approximate and be inserted for the Hebrew, Sheol.

I cast a line and bobber out from where I am out onto the *shore! I got a bite, but did you notice the little hook buried in the sand ?! I asked you what was the english word for hell. A little trick ! Hell is the english word for the Greek: Gehenna, which is a transliteration of Jesus' Aramaic. Like what Hades is to S/Sheol, so too is what Gehenna is to the valley of Hinnom. That Hinnom valley is the Hebrew. It is hell in English. Jesus said that the otherword Hell is like in some significant fashion like that valley (with it terrible history of child sacrifice by burning alive, for ex.), and so [came to be thought fit only as] the site for Jerusalem's garbage. The city's Dung Gate led out to the ravine. Sulphur was used to aid the burning. Flies. Maggots. Foul odor and smoke rising. The mount of offense tophet was there at about the lower end.



I don't believe everyone is saved. I believe many have a chance after death in a purgatory.You're not on board with universalism. That's in your favor ! Good. I was mistaken then.

But in what place/s in some ID'ed verses there straight from Jesus' teachings and reflected in his disciple's / apostles 'backing him up' does God speak concretely of a purgatory ??

No, there is the OT S/sheol and the Hell, which is also called the lake of fire that burns with brimstone (sulphur) which is the second death in the New Testament. That's it; no more. Two places. Just two; no third, a purgatory.

Is all of Sheol in some ways conditionally like the purgatory you believe exists ?

Is it for you (your belief) essentially the RCC purgatory, perhaps reworked in complimentary other and/or some conflicting specifics ? How does one get out of this purgatory and go on to Heaven ? Does it involve rituals of the living faithful as well as prayers for ? Yes, can anybody alive help them--speed up the process ? Are those in this inbetween state which is not sheol, suffering (being purged...of guilt) there for their own sins so that they can eventually enter Heaven righteous enough ?

Do you believe in the last judgement of The Rev. ch. 20, vs. 10 -15, as is ? ---> When and where do we see the purged entering Heaven ?


In the old KJV, in the *N.T. too, Sheol=Hades is always lazily translated as the english word, "hell." For them, the N.T. Hades, which is the Hebrew sheol is neither ! The same mistranslating goes for the Gr. Ge Hinnom=valley of Hinnom (Hebrew). They are all "hell," which causes many to mistakenly think that the otherworld place of punishment is like/AS DESCRIBED in the OT S/sheol. Sheol is Hell in the N.T.? Wrong ! When Jesus says the word "Gehenna" --that is akin to the Hell, literally, and NOT S/sheol=Hades.


>

[John Goddard]

Why are you not debating but arguing by link ?

I stated my point, Sheol is not necessarily a place of unconsciousness, and I also gave verses to show people being delivered from Hell. I gave the link to support my statement.


You tell me what S/heol=Hades is in your estimation.

This sums up various states well, which also parallel Jonah's experience:

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Sea = Place of terror, panic, drowning, heading to death.
Death = Unconscious, sleeping, the bottom of the sea.
Hell = Purgatory, in the belly of the "whale" (sin/serpent), a chance for some to repent, temporarily rescued from sea and death.

[gharfish]

I stated my point, Sheol is not necessarily a place of unconsciousness, and I also gave verses to show people being delivered from Hell. I gave the link to support my statement.



This sums up various states well, which also parallel Jonah's experience:

Revelation 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Sea = Place of terror, panic, drowning, heading to death.
Death = Unconscious, sleeping, the bottom of the sea.
Hell = Purgatory, in the belly of the "whale" (sin/serpent), a chance for some to repent, temporarily rescued from sea and death.I said as plain as day that Sheol is indeed a place of consciousness. So why are you bringing this up with me again ?

The word is Hades in The Revelation 20: 13; not hell. Hades is the Greek word there, substituted for the Hebrew Sheol. The Hell in The Rev. is called the lake of fire which is the second death. It is a metaphor and ALSO says what happens. The Gehenna garbage dump / the Valley of Hinnom (Ge hinnom) is a figurative picture for the very same place of permanent (eternal) final and irreversible punishment WE ALL KNOW AS THE HELL--Jesus' otherword Hell.. That verse is in the passage that tells of the last judgement. The souls=people who are in Sheol are the ones who stand before Jesus to be judged.

Death is death personified. Physical death is to cease. You have messed up and messed around with sheol of Jonah's lament. Why not quote it, as you did the other three OT KJV's verse examples of what you consider proof texts ? You need to use this verse about Jonah's great fish ordeal to support the notion of a purgatory. Where is Jesus' purgatory found ? .....What about the verse from Jude you brought up ?




>

[John Goddard]

I said as plain as day that Sheol is indeed a place of consciousness. So why are you bringing this up with me again ?

Because you accused me of arguing by link, so I explained that the link supported my argument. The link was not given as my argument.


The word is Hades in The Revelation 20: 13; not hell. Hades is the Greek word there, substituted for the Hebrew Sheol. The Hell in The Rev. is called the lake of fire which is the second death.

The Lake of Fire is called the Lake of Fire, limne ho pur, Revelation 20:14.

Hades in Revelation 20:13 (translated as Hell KJV) is where the dead are taken from to be Judged, and what I say is a purgatorial state similar to the whale's belly in Jonah, per my last post.

Hades is not where the wicked go for eternity after Judgment -- that would be the Lake of Fire. So you are confused.


You need to use this verse about Jonah's great fish ordeal to support the notion of a purgatory. Where is Jesus' purgatory found ?

I posted other verses, but Jonah's experienced is directly confirmed by Jesus in Matthew 12:40 to be indicative of what happens to some after death.

There is no evidence Jesus had any sins to purge, he simply had to remain patient and trust in God as he waited there for 3 days/nights, per messianic verses in Psalms.

Psalms 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Psalms 18:6 In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.

Similar:

Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

Jonah 2:6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my God.

Jonah 2:7 When my soul fainted within me I remembered the LORD: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.

Jesus didn't just compare himself to Jonah for the heck of it, he was also giving a prompt to compare the books of Jonah and Psalms to verify what he was saying.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

[NormATive]

Luke 16: 19-21 cannot be written off as figurative.

Sure it can. Jesus is telling us a parable. Do you really believe that

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.the rich man was looking up from hell all the way up to heaven?

Parables are not a good source for factual information. It's a made up story to illustrate a greater truth.

Namely that riches will not guarantee favor with G-d.

NORM

[gharfish]

No, it isn't; I agree. I never said it wasn't. I have said it was and that the people there are alive. Alive. Conscious. Jesus tells us so. That part of Luke 16: 19-21 cannot be written off as figurative.

Good grief; at least quote me properly. This is what I said --> That part of of the parable; that those in Sheol are alive and conscious. The rich man was in Sheol just as was Father Abraham. Abraham's Bosom or Paradise is not the same as Heaven, the dwelling place of God. Hades is not Hell; it is Sheol. You are a Jew [only] by birth and don't know even this ?!




>

[John Goddard]

Sure it can. Jesus is telling us a parable. Do you really believe that

the rich man was looking up from hell all the way up to heaven?

Parables are not a good source for factual information. It's a made up story to illustrate a greater truth.

Namely that riches will not guarantee favor with G-d.

NORM

All indications are that it was a mix of parable and prophetic truth.

Lazarus did return from the dead.

Luke 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

John 11:44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.

Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

So Abraham was saying that some would not believe even if they saw a resurrection. True.

But others did in fact believe:

John 11:45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.

And we're told about five who may or may not believe here:

Luke 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Same as here:

Matthew 25:1-2 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

So as I said, it was a real thing that Lazarus rose from the dead, and there is no reason to think it is all made up. Rather, the real event was prophetic in that it related to the bigger story of all of Israel who would believe versus those who would not.

And those who would not were concerned with material rather than spiritual things, which is related to what you said. Although thus far you have only grasped a small part of the meaning here.

[Cupofwrath.com]

John:

So as I said, it was a real thing that Lazarus rose from the dead

I don't think they are the same Lazarus, which is the Greek version of the name Levi, and may have been a common name at that time.

[John Goddard]

John:

So as I said, it was a real thing that Lazarus rose from the dead

I don't think they are the same Lazarus, which is the Greek version of the name Levi, and may have been a common name at that time.

Two men named Lazarus, coming forth from the dead so men would believe. Same situation.

I don't see any reason why there would be two of them. Or why Jesus would make up a fairy tale about the afterlife to use as a parable.

[Cupofwrath.com]

John Goddard:
Two men named Lazarus, coming forth from the dead so men would believe. Same situation.

Luke 16 never says that Lazarus the beggar came forth from the dead, and I think the story is a true account. I just don't think they are the same person.

[John Goddard]

John Goddard:
Two men named Lazarus, coming forth from the dead so men would believe. Same situation.

Luke 16 never says that Lazarus the beggar came forth from the dead, and I think the story is a true account. I just don't think they are the same person.

In John were talking about the possibility of a man Lazarus returning from the dead so others may believe. In Luke that really happened.

A "beggar" as a metaphor implies a man who is in spiritual need -- a sinner as others who were with Jesus -- as opposed to Pharisees who were seen as spiritually "rich" but were in reality hypocrites.

As far as I'm concerned they are about the same Lazarus.

[NormATive]

All indications are that it was a mix of parable and prophetic truth.

So as I said, it was a real thing that Lazarus rose from the dead, and there is no reason to think it is all made up.

Are we talking about the same thing? The Lazarus in the parable with the rich man isn't the same Lazarus that is the relative of Jesus that the scriptures say Jesus brought back from the dead.

Rather, the real event was prophetic in that it related to the bigger story of all of Israel who would believe versus those who would not.

And those who would not were concerned with material rather than spiritual things, which is related to what you said. Although thus far you have only grasped a small part of the meaning here.

The point is, however, that a parable is not a good basis for any kind of factual information about Sheol, Hades or the English word translated as Hell.

NORM

[Cupofwrath.com]

Whether or not the story of Lazarus and the rich man really happened (I think it did), the point of the story is that it is a depiction of the immediate afterlife for two people

It depicts both Hades and Paradise and the consequences of choices that people make. So if one is not going to accept the nature of the depiction therein, then they are not accepting what the scripture is telling us.

The depiction of the Hades in Luke 16, is also consistent with Sheol in the OT, and other Hades references in the NT.

[John Goddard]

Are we talking about the same thing? The Lazarus in the parable with the rich man isn't the same Lazarus that is the relative of Jesus that the scriptures say Jesus brought back from the dead.

Why isn't he?


The point is, however, that a parable is not a good basis for any kind of factual information about Sheol, Hades or the English word translated as Hell.

Why isn't it? Jesus used parables to convey information about Heaven.

[NormATive]

Why isn't he?

The Lazarus in the parable was described as a "beggar" if I remember correctly. I don' think Jesus' cousin was a beggar.



Why isn't it? Jesus used parables to convey information about Heaven.

Maybe. Maybe not. It's a parable. A story. It might be true, but it also might not. There is no indication either way in the narrative.

NORM

[John Goddard]

The Lazarus in the parable was described as a "beggar" if I remember correctly. I don' think Jesus' cousin was a beggar.

As a metaphor it could be about a person "poor" in spirit, not necessarily being without money. Example:

Revelation 3:17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

Revelation 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Again, Jesus hung out with sinners poor in spirit. So his friend Lazarus may have been of that type.


Maybe. Maybe not. It's a parable. A story. It might be true, but it also might not. There is no indication either way in the narrative.

Jesus used prophetic metaphors to describe real concepts. For example, I don't take moving a mountain into the sea with faith literally, although I suppose one could do it if God gave him that power.

Rather, in Revelation a "mountain" as metaphor in prophecy describes a kingdom, and I believe the "sea" refers to the way to death (Psalms 42:7, 74:13, Jonah 2:3, Revelation 20:13, etc.). Specifically, the same imagery is used to describe sending Babylon to its final death (Revelation 18:21).

So on a personal level, a person could banish "Babylon" as sin from his or her own life, with enough faith.

--------------------------------

With Lazarus and the rich man, I don't see the same use of metaphor. What could be the parable, two men conscious in Paradise and Hell, with Abraham being asked to have this Lazarus resurrected? Believe me, I look for metaphor and parable in all the verses.

But this sounds more like a telling of real events to me, so there's no reason to think it was about some other Lazarus who was sent back to cause men to believe.

[NormATive]

But this sounds more like a telling of real events to me, so there's no reason to think it was about some other Lazarus who was sent back to cause men to believe.

I would agree with you that it could be describing real events if it weren't for the bit about the rich man looking across to see Lazarus.

To me, that's just outside of the realm of believability.

I still don't think this parable is a good basis for an informed debate about the existence or non-existence of hell.

In my opinion, any parable - and there is no argument that this is indeed a parable - is not reliable for factual information as to the elements surrounding the pedagogical meaning of the parable.

NORM