Earth Outer Core is Spiritual

[dad]

Indeed, most of our ideas about hell owe more to medieval imagination (e.g. Dante) than to the bible. The vast majority of biblical references to hell (in the KJV) refer to the Hebrew 'sheol' or the Greek 'hades' which were simply the places of the dead i.e. the grave. The old Anglo-Saxon 'hel' meant the same thing. It was practically identical to 'hades'.

But the bible refers to the life to come, it is not a dead zone as you indicate. For example the rich man, and Lazarus. When they died, they didn't just stay dead, they did stuff, and in different places.

It is unlikely that the Hebrews thought of people in hell being conscious until they appropriated that idea from the Greeks.

I see. So Enoch walked with God, and left this physical existance, and...what? Was buried and in a dead state in some cloud???
Also, if we look at the new testament, we see Jesus on the mountain having a chat with two long dead people!

The notion of 'hades' was much more detailed in Greek mythology than 'sheol' ever was. The KJV also translates 'sheol' as "grave" and "pit". So burial is a proper understanding of what Jesus meant.

No, depends on where and how it is used. One pit mentioned was the bottomless pit, and that was no grave.

Interestingly, in the Gospels, the word most often translated into the English "hell" is neither 'sheol' nor 'hades' but 'gehenna' the name of Jerusalem's garbage dump.

Hey, God recycles, I guess.

People also confuse hell with Revelation's lake of fire. Hell (i.e. 'hades') does not have eternal existence. It is destroyed along with death in the lake of fire.

So, you posit that something in that lake is destroyed? The Antichrist was thrown in alive, does that mean he died? Does everyone who has a part in that worst of places die? Just a question.

 

[gluadys]

So, ypu posit that something in that lake is destroyed? The Antichrist was thrown in alive, does that mean he died? Does everyone who has a part in that worst of places die? Just a question.

Depends on whether or not the anti-christ is an immortal being. Jesus says that everlasting fire is prepared for the devil and his angels, who presumably are immortal and cannot die. Humans are not immortal, so I expect those humans cast into the lake of fire are destroyed.

Appearances of the dead do not count as so far, no one has been cast into the lake of fire. It only applies at the final judgment, after hell has given up all its dead.

 

[shernren]

Again, a demonstration of the difference between reading with grace or for the purposes of prosecution. Interest in the idea is not commitment to the idea. Read what was said again.
...
Frankly, I don't care greatly about how that verse is read, but it is evidence and it is interesting and it does appear to be a statement of cosmology. There should be enough grace available to read such views without ridicule.

What does this "grace" mean, anyway? Does it mean that if I read something a particular person has said, and I think I disagree with valid reasons, that I shouldn't voice such a disagreement?

Who has ridiculed who? Quite frankly, the only two elements of anything close to ridicule is some posters reiterating dad's bad past record, and the comparison with a flat earth. In both cases the arguments were brought up with evidenced support and for the specific reason of engaging with either the original post or the original poster.

If "reading with grace" means turning a blind eye to everything that I have reasonable disagreement with then I'm sorry to say that you won't find much "grace" here or anywhere else.

Context for "heart of the earth"? This is a nonissue. There is no proof text to change the plain meaning. There is only a difference in philosophy about how to read that verse. When faced with that dilemma, it is a good time to take back the rhetoric a notch before you criticize someeone.

Is the entire NT enough "proof text" to inform the interpretation of the verse?

Look at what is happening in that portion of Scripture. The scribes and Pharisees have challenged Jesus for a sign; Jesus answers that in their perversity, the only sign they will receive or acknowledge is the sign of Jonah. "As Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Now think about it. Jesus did many miracles to the faithful, but in many places He withheld His power precisely because miracles would do nothing to convert those who didn't have an open heart and mind. And yet here He promises a single, spectacular miracle which would be shown to even the faithless hecklers. What miracle would this be? It must have been a public one. It must have been one that would leave people talking for generations after it had been done. It would be a miracle that Jesus' followers would admire and sing of as the centerpiece of their religion.

Which fits this description? Jesus being buried for three days, or Jesus going to hell for three days?

Certainly not the latter. In fact, the only reason anybody believes that Jesus went to hell at all is because of an obscure, almost irrelevant note in 1 Peter 3 that Jesus preached to the spirits in hell who had died in the Noahic deluge. Other than that, as far as I know, there isn't a single unequivocal verse in the NT that tells us that Jesus went to hell. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, for the creeds speak of it (in the one line it is entitled); what I am saying is that it is of such peripheral unimportance that for Jesus to make it His sign to the unrepentant doesn't make any Scriptural sense.

But the fact that Jesus was buried for three days is certainly much ballyhooed about in the NT, isn't it? We sing and speak of how Jesus rose from the grave. Now there is Jesus' sign to the unbelievers. The sign of Jonah is not merely that Jesus spent three days in the grave but that He didn't spend a single day more: in other words, that Jesus spent only three days in a grave, and then He conquered death.

Throughout it makes far more sense for Jesus to have been speaking of a physical tomb than spiritual hell.

 

[dad]

Depends on whether or not the anti-christ is an immortal being. Jesus says that everlasting fire is prepared for the devil and his angels, who presumably are immortal and cannot die.

Well, the Antichrist was taken ALIVE, and cast in there.

Re 19:20 - And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. They stay there for, as I think it could be translated, ..

Rev 20:10 - and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.
(Young's Literal Translation).

Humans are not immortal, so I expect those humans cast into the lake of fire are destroyed.

Well, I suspect there could be some there that eventually have to be. But for the most part, my opinion is that they just do their time, and learn some lessons. Have their part in it.

Re 21:8 - But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Appearances of the dead do not count as so far, no one has been cast into the lake of fire.

Can't figure out what this refers to, like what dead, when, why, and doing what where?

It only applies at the final judgment, after hell has given up all its dead.

"Verse 14. And death and hell were east into the lake of fire. Death and Hades (hell) are here personified, as they are in the previous verse. The declaration is equivalent to the statement in 1 Corinthians 15:26, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." See Barnes "1 Corinthians 15:26". The idea is, that death, considered as the separation of soul and body, with all the attendant woes, will exist no more. The righteous will live for ever, and the wicked will linger on in a state never to be terminated by death. The reign of Death and Hades, as such, would come to an end, and a new order of things would commence where this would be unknown."
http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=re&chapter=20&verse=14#Re20_14

If this take on it were true, this would coincide with the end of the millenium, I think. That means the end of this temporary state of physical only as well. The time when a new heavens (universe) and earth appear. If so, it appears to be refering to the true state, complete state, eternal state of man, (and everything else) like before the fall of man, perhaps. We now have a body, and a spirit, which have to seperate when the body ceases to live. As the commentary says, "The idea is, that death, considered as the separation of soul and body"
So in other words, the seperation will no longer exist. We will be together, whole, or, merged, if you prefer.

But, even so, I don't see how the beings in the eternal state that do have to have a part in that lake would all die, or be destroyed.

I also do not personally believe that hell is forever. I also do not believe that the real stinkers in the lake will be there forever either! I think they will have their bit, or time, or age and and age in there.

The smoke from the lake, and fire in it will apparently be for real ever and ever. But not the people that were in it!

 

[theFijian]

Yes, It was there still at the time of Jesus. When did the old testament saints arise? After He arose, this moots your point. Try again.

Can someone help me out here? I've reread this dity from dad about 5 times now and it still makes no more sense than the first time.

Anyway, what the verse from Luke tells us is that Jesus went straight to be by the side of his father after he died on the cross. That day he was in paradise. Furthermore...

Luke 23:46 - "Father into your hands I commit my spirit".

This verse clearly tells us that Jesus commited his spirit to his father. His spirit did not 'descend' into Hell.

John 19:30 - "... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

The atonement was wrought on the cross, not in Hell. When Jesus said "It is finished" he meant his work was over, then he went to be with his Father. He was not in Hell for three days.

 

[dad]

Anyway, what the verse from Luke tells us is that Jesus went straight to be by the side of his father after he died on the cross. That day he was in paradise. Furthermore...

You seem to assume that that paradise then was where paradise later was/is? I heard there was a paradise under the earth until back then? That is why the thief on the cross went to paradise, but also saw Jesus that day! In other words, UNDER the earth. We know Jesus went down there to preach to the spirits in prison. Looks like He stopped off in paradise first for a little visit. Then he preached to the souls in hell, also under the earth!

Luke 23:46 - "Father into your hands I commit my spirit".

This verse clearly tells us that Jesus commited his spirit to his father. His spirit did not 'descend' into Hell.

No, as I said He went to paradise first.

John 19:30 - "... Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

The atonement was wrought on the cross, not in Hell.

So?? I don't remember anyone posting otherwise, and I don'r particularly see how it even relates.

When Jesus said "It is finished" he meant his work was over, then he went to be with his Father. He was not in Hell for three days.

He went to paradise on His way, but, of course He spent three days preaching to the spirits in prison down there! I hope you are not suggesting the folks up in heaven are in prison!!!!!! Absurd.

 

[gluadys]

Can't figure out what this refers to, like what dead, when, why, and doing what where?

So you forget what you yourself said in the post I was responding to?

So Enoch walked with God, and left this physical existance, and...what? Was buried and in a dead state in some cloud???
Also, if we look at the new testament, we see Jesus on the mountain having a chat with two long dead people!?

As for the rest of this post, you are depending a lot on Young's commentary i.e. an interpretation of the text. It's a fairly traditional interpretation, but I don't wholly agree with it. For example, I know of no reason to assume that human existence pre-fall was eternal.

 

[dad]

So you forget what you yourself said in the post I was responding to?




As for the rest of this post, you are depending a lot on Young's commentary i.e. an interpretation of the text. It's a fairly traditional interpretation, but I don't wholly agree with it. For example, I know of no reason to assume that human existence pre-fall was eternal.

The tree of life that gave eternal life comes to mind. After all, it didn't suddenly appear only after they were kicked out of the garden in there. Can you suggest some reason to assume they would not have eaten, from all trees, especially that one?? 'Every tree may ye eat, except...' What was it there for, to show them what they couldn't have???? I mean the tree of life is also in New Jerusalem, why wouldn't we eat it??
What else makes sense, if even after the fall, they lived nearly a thousand years?
As for the commentary, yes, there are different opinions. I chose something close to this one, because God comes out looking more like I know He is, wise, loving, just, merciful. Not some cruel tormenting monster.

 

[Mallon]

The tree of life that gave eternal life comes to mind. After all, it didn't suddenly appear only after they were kicked out of the garden in there. Can you suggest some reason to assume they would not have eaten, from all trees, especially that one?? 'Every tree may ye eat, except...' What was it there for, to show them what they couldn't have???? I mean the tree of life is also in New Jerusalem, why wouldn't we eat it??

Are you suggesting that, had not Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have died???

 

[dad]

Are you suggesting that, had not Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have died???

I don't really know. My assumption was that in eating it, they were to live forever. I don't know that they had to keep eating it for maintaining eternal life. Almost like a light switch, they had already eaten it, and were going to live forever. The switch was up, or 'on'. Then, they ate the forbidden fruit, and the switc was turned off, and they started to die!
God had to post an angel at the entrance to the garden to keep them from sneaking back in, and flipping the switch back on. -Completing the circuit, as it were, to reconnect body and spirit, back into the eternal form.
Why? Because man would then have been in the forever state, in a state of sin, and that could not happen. Look how bad we messed it up with only living short lifespans!!
A Saviour had to be sent, to lead us out of sin, and into salvation, so we could enetr the forever state the right way.
At least that's my take.

 

[Mallon]

I don't really know. My assumption was that in eating it, they were to live forever. I don't know that they had to keep eating it for maintaining eternal life. Almost like a light switch, they had already eaten it, and were going to live forever. The switch was up, or 'on'. Then, they ate the forbidden fruit, and the switc was turned off, and they started to die!

Quite a bugger, that Tree of Life, eh?
If Adam was created perfect and eternal, then he didn't need to eat of it.
And once Adam fell into sin, he wasn't allowed to eat of it.
What good was the Tree of Life, then?

 

[theFijian]

You seem to assume that that paradise then was where paradise later was/is?

Why would you assume anything different? If Hell is a spiritual place as you say, then it has no physical location, in the future it will do.

I heard there was a paradise under the earth until back then?

Interesting idea, where did you hear this?

That is why the thief on the cross went to paradise, but also saw Jesus that day!

The thief was with Jesus, your idea means the thief must have been in Hell too.

In other words, UNDER the earth.

No. In other words the thief was in heaven with Jesus and with the Father.

We know Jesus went down there to preach to the spirits in prison.

What we know is that Jesus did not descend into Hell for three days after the resurrection. Whenever he preached to the spirits in prison (whatever that really means no one can be sure) it wasn't at this time.

Looks like He stopped off in paradise first for a little visit. Then he preached to the souls in hell, also under the earth!

No it doesn't look anything like that.

No, as I said He went to paradise first.

He did go to paradise first, he went to be with the Father. The Father is in Heaven, not in Hell.

So?? I don't remember anyone posting otherwise, and I don't particularly see how it even relates.

The relevance is he had no need to go to Hell. The relevance is his spirit went to be with his Father. The relevance is the Father is in Heaven not Hell.

He went to paradise on His way, but, of course He spent three days preaching to the spirits in prison down there!

Again, this is wrong. Aren't there any other YECs who see how wrong this is?

I hope you are not suggesting the folks up in heaven are in prison!!!!!! Absurd.

To suggest such a thing would indeed be absurd, phew! Glad I hadn't.

Anyway I leave for a skiing holiday in 5 hours so I likely wont see any reply of yours. I doubt I'll be missing much.

 

[theFijian]

Are you suggesting that, had not Adam and Eve eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have died???

Actually this is what I think about the Tree of Life, except that the Tree is a representation of Christ. I believe if Adam and Eve were immortal then it was a contingent immortality ie. immortal as long as they didn't fall of a 500ft cliff, and as long as they partook of the fruit of the Tree of Life. I think Christ sustained them physically, spiritually, emotionally etc as long as they had full unbroken communion with him.

To me this is the only explanation of the Tree of Life (that I've heard so far) which makes sense, otherwise just what was the point of the Tree of Life?

 

[dad]

Quite a bugger, that Tree of Life, eh?
If Adam was created perfect and eternal, then he didn't need to eat of it.
And once Adam fell into sin, he wasn't allowed to eat of it.
What good was the Tree of Life, then?

We don't need to eat in heaven, and Adam may not have needed to eat in Eden. So, why eat? Simple, we feel like it, things are neat, things are tasty.
Perhaps the tree of life had other effects? Like a glass of wine?? Or an aphrodesiac? So much we really don't know. Why not assume the most wonderful, exciting thing you can think of, it is almost certainly going to be a lot better than that anyhow! 'Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, the things that God hath prepared for them that love Him..'
Another thought is, yes, they may have had eternal life and not need the tree for that. Maybe the tree gave life to other creatures we may have wanted to keep around. Yet if we had have eaten it after the fall, we would have had life again? After all, we got our life from the breath of God, not a tree, originally! The leaves of the tree of life, as described in Revelation, are for healing! So, somehow, this tree is ver connected with life.

Just a few thoughts on that.

 

[dad]

Why would you assume anything different?

Simple, Jesus went down to paradise. He later went up, and prepared a new one. He went, He said TO prepare a place for us. When the OT saints arose from the dead, do you think they were in hell down there, or paradise? If paradise, then we know it is now UP, not down. Jesus ascended into heaven.

If Hell is a spiritual place as you say, then it has no physical location, in the future it will do.

But it may be housed in a physical and spiritual place, like we know heaven is both! So, it does have a specific location, but not in the present physical only state we know, and think of. If the outer core was spiritual, and physical, or merged, as the OP proposes, then it has a merged location, that is also physical, but not just physical. It is very real.

Interesting idea, where did you hear this?

A little bird told me. Ha. Actually, it was a friend that is dead now.

The thief was with Jesus, your idea means the thief must have been in Hell too.

No, one of them went to paradise. ' This day, shalt thou be with me in paradise' Jesus said on the cross, if we remember. Jesus went into the heart of the earth to preach to the spirits in prison (hell), and stopped by Paradise, for a visit on the way, and maybe on the way back as well, for all we know.

No. In other words the thief was in heaven with Jesus and with the Father.

He may be there now, but if He saw Jesus that day He was down below us somewhere at the time.

What we know is that Jesus did not descend into Hell for three days after the resurrection. Whenever he preached to the spirits in prison (whatever that really means no one can be sure) it wasn't at this time.

You think we know that do you? Strange.

No it doesn't look anything like that.

He did go to paradise first, he went to be with the Father. The Father is in Heaven, not in Hell.

Prove it.

The relevance is he had no need to go to Hell. The relevance is his spirit went to be with his Father. The relevance is the Father is in Heaven not Hell.

Are you suggesting the Sceptre could not have parked in paradise for a bit??? (The flying wheels, and mobile throne of God spoken of in Ezekiel 1)

Again, this is wrong. Aren't there any other YECs who see how wrong this is?

Why not just out and make your case? I can handle it, don't worry a bit.

To suggest such a thing would indeed be absurd, phew! Glad I hadn't.

So, where did Jesus preach to the spirits in prison then for three days??

Anyway I leave for a skiing holiday in 5 hours so I likely wont see any reply of yours. I doubt I'll be missing much.

No more than usual!

 

[Parmenio]

What is the scriptural reference for saying that Christ went down to Hell after he was crucified?

 

[dad]

What is the scriptural reference for saying that Christ went down to Hell after he was crucified?

OK. Here is a good one, first, about how the Father could have decended to paradise, when it was down there.

Pr 30:4 - Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell? Anyhew.. The OT prophesied of it, it seems, ..here.
Isaiah 61

1The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Refered to again hereLuke 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. So, the guys He preached to after dying, we see here were long dead, and pretty wicked at one time. Of course there re two interpretations. I chose the simple one that it seems to be saying. Fits like a glove. "Psalm 16:10 - For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Ro 10: 6 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above 7 Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) Acts 2:31 - He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. Ephesians 4: 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. "For example, the Apostles’ Creed affirmed belief in Jesus on the following terms: “Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and buried; He descended into hell, the third day He rose again from the dead” (emp. added). The Athanasian Creed states: “He suffered death for our salvation. He descended into hell and rose again from the dead”"The apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, which dates from the fifth century A.D., claims that Jesus descended into hell and retrieved all the Old Testament saints, including Adam, David, Habakkuk, and Isaiah (see James, 1924, pp. 125ff.).http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1789
"We saw that "Paradise" was a compartment within Hades in which the spirits of all of the righteous people were held until the cross. "
http://layhands.com/DidJesusGoToHell.htm
Seems to me there is a lot to twist and deny if one seeks to explain this puppy away.

 

[Parmenio]

Why do people use the term Hades to reference a Christian Hell or purgatory. In my experience, that term refers exclusively to the Greek concept of the afterlife. And Hades itself was not a place of punishment really, just a place where the dead went.

 

[dad]

Why do people use the term Hades to reference a Christian Hell or purgatory. In my experience, that term refers exclusively to the Greek concept of the afterlife. And Hades itself was not a place of punishment really, just a place where the dead went.

Right, the dead went somewhere. The good ones to paradise, the bad ones to prison. I never said it was an Abu Grabe! Hell has different levels, as does heaven. We go somewhere, apparently. Look at Lazarus and the rich man, they died, and didn't just lie there, they did things, ate, drank, talked, whatever. Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, and also went to paradise down there.
I like the verse that shows His Dad likely visited Him there. After all the Father, it indicates in Eze, has a starship throne. And, as I pointed out in some other section, that was likely the Christmas star. That is why it could guide the wise men, and there are no records of it.

Pr 30:4 - Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? ... who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

 

[Parmenio]

No, ALL dead went to Hades, regardless. Whether great or evil, all dead went to hades. Some sort of paradise was a latter addition, but the original thought for Hades, was a place for ALL dead.