Hell is a 404

[Hillsage]

I suspect that this wrath is closer in meaning to "zeal" - more disciplining, more refining, more cleansing for them. Do you think God compares Himself to refining fire and to fullers' soap for no reason? So you see, it is far, far better to have gone through all that in this life.

Actually "zeal" isn't far off of the true definition concerning the reason for God's judgments. Two different Greek words are translated "wrath" in the book of Revelation. One (Gr. thumos) is defined as "passion, as if breathing hard". It is that word which is used when it speaks of God pouring out His "wrath". Which is basically a distortion of the intended interpretation of God who desires all to come to a knowledge of the truth. The second (Gr. orge) is defines as "desire or violent passion." Read the following verse under the influence of an 'inspired alternative interpretations' and not the pen of false scribes protecting indoctrinated theology and see what a different light is shown from scripture.

REV 16:19 The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered great Babylon, to make her drain the cup of the fury/passion of his wrath/desire.

2372 thumos: passion (as if breathing hard)
3709 orge: prop. desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), i.e. (by anal.) violent passion (ire, or [justifiable] abhorrence); by impl. punishment

Yes, the passion of God and His desire is to judge all unto repentance, unto the salvation of 'knowing' experientailly, the truth. For such is the definition of "eternal life". 'Eternal life' is not a quantity of time in life, but a quality of life in time.

JOH 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

When will this come to pass for humanity? For 'some', in this age, for others, "in the ages to come ". For only then will they get their FIRST CHANCE to believe, unlike the carnal minded theologies of those thinking it's a 'second chance'. It is not, they were never "called, drawn, chosen or ordained to believe" in this age.

 

[JacksBratt]

There you go, putting "yes" and "no" in my mouth, when my answers were more nuanced. I consider it next to a lie. Quote my response (do not boil it down), or go away. You are worth no more answers if your goal was to set a trap for me, but that's the Christian Forum for you.

I apologize if I got your answers wrong. From your responses, those are the answers I would have assumed you were giving.

Maybe it would be better, when someone is asking a "yes" or "no" question, to start or finish with a definitive response as to one or the other.

So, again, I apologize. Can you set me straight on the correct answers you would have given, or what your true view is?
I set no trap. I asked simple basic questions. Whenever we read a post, we naturally boil it down to understand the basic idea being presented.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Because Romans 6:7 - "For the person who has died has been freed from sin." This is covered in my OP, and pointed forward to by the Law of the Jubilee. At a set time, when the trumpet is blown or when you die and get resurrected, you are free to go to your inheritance - at least, those in the first resurrection. It looks like those in the second resurrection will not inherit in the Kingdom, and that alone is sufficient reason for the Great Commission. Looking at mankind in general, those in the second resurrection should have plenty to repent of, starting with something like, "I can't believe I didn't believe in You before!"

My "eye-for-an-eye" expression was a result of not being able to find the exactly right phrase. I had not had coffee yet.

Am I right to understand that the sum of your conviction is based on the idea of a first resurrection where Christ in body rules for a 1000 literal years on earth (Millennium), and all, even those who rejected Christ, have a chance to repent at that time? Can they sin in those days? Can they still reject Christ? If they can't reject Christ in those days, but are indeed saved, that amounts to the same as salvation outside Jesus Christ.

Just as gentle disclaimer, it's certainly not my intention to put words in your mouth, but if this is how you see it, then this view is also unorthodox and problematic with regards to the gospel and what has been revealed to us about God's kingdom and His righteousness - as they have been made known to us through our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles.

Also, I'm curious to how you solve my previous problem: Why do you believe that those who reject Christ are saved when God didn't even spare the angels who abused their free will? Do you think Satan will be saved? Scriptures teach us otherwise. See 2 Peter 2

Finally, I want to explain the verses you point to in OP in their context:
Leviticus 25:8-13 - In light of the New Testament, we can know that Jesus is the Sabbath rest for Christians. Matthew 12:8 Matthew 11:28 Hebrews 4

Isaiah 1:18 - In light of the New Testament, we know that this too refers to the washing of sins through Christ Jesus. Revelation 7:14 Titus 3:5 1 John 1:7 Titus 2:11-14 Acts 22:14-16 Hebrews 9:14 1 John 1:7

Romans 6:7 - This verse is real key in this particular argument, and I'd like to stress this: Though it reads "For one who has died has been set free from sin" it ONLY applies to people who have died WITH and INTO Christ. In fact, before and after it clearly says:

"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." Romans 6:5-11

So, we can NOT read these verses to include people who in their sin and rebellion reject Christ.

 

[Light of the East]

1. This view sounds a lot like purgatory, which is not universally accepted, however unlike purgatory (if I understand what you're suggesting correctly) this alternative also includes unbelievers. This view is not orthodox - not even to people that hold to purgatory.

The main reason why this is problematic is that if people could bear their own punishment for sins - including the sin of rejecting Christ - and then somehow after paying for all their sins, finally become received into the kingdom of God - they never needed Jesus, but instead they worked their salvation. But the Bible is clear on that there is no salvation outside our Lord Jesus Christ.

First of all, purgation after death is not "bearing their own punishment for sins." You misunderstand the nature of what salvation is designed to achieve. This most likely comes from having a Western (penal) mindset regarding God, mankind, and salvation.

Salvation is the restoration of the original status of mankind in the Garden. It is not deliverance from punishment as much as it is healing from the corrupting disease of sin. (Jesus said "Those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick.") Sin has corrupted our natures and thus we are not the beings we were created to be.

Upon death, we meet God. He is a burning fire of love, and all that is not like Him is burned away by that love. This is a purging of our souls so that we become like Him and can fully enter into the love/unity of the Trinity.

It is not "payment" for our sins. If anyone did that at all, it was Christ as He paid for the sins of all mankind so that the restoration of our original purpose could be achieved and we could begin our divinization.

The work of being changed into the likeness of Christ is a co-operative work. We cooperate with the Holy Spirit and He produces change in us. Purgation after death is simply the final step.

 

[Light of the East]

Furthermore, practically speaking, if we proclaim to unbelievers that they all will be saved in the end, regardless of their their beliefs, how does this align itself with the Great Commission?

To keep people from experiencing the fires of hell, which are temporary, but extremely painful as they deal with our sinful condition. I would much rather begin my journey into divinization here and now and forego the pain.

 

[Hillsage]

To keep people from experiencing the fires of hell, which are temporary, but extremely painful as they deal with our sinful condition. I would much rather begin my journey into divinization here and now and forego the pain.

I would just like to add that I believe those 'fires' are just as 'extremely painful' to those of us who are "baptized with the Holy Ghost and FIRE". They are also as painful as they are to the CHRISTIAN in 1Cor 3 whose 'bema' seat judgment consists of;

1CO 3:15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

As you said earlier, people do not understand the 'purgative' spiritual fire of God, and can only relate to the 'penal' or punitive fires familiarly used by carnal minded man.

As you, I too am extremely grateful to have been "called, chosen, predestined, ordained to believe" by HIS WILL, in this age as a sort of first fruits harvest in the plan of God for his beloved creation. But I still believe my 'divinization' to the point of "the image of the stature of the fullness of Christ"...perfection, will still require some final purgative fires, as quoted in the verse above.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I apologize if I got your answers wrong. From your responses, those are the answers I would have assumed you were giving.

Maybe it would be better, when someone is asking a "yes" or "no" question, to start or finish with a definitive response as to one or the other.

So, again, I apologize. Can you set me straight on the correct answers you would have given, or what your true view is?
I set no trap. I asked simple basic questions. Whenever we read a post, we naturally boil it down to understand the basic idea being presented.

You are forgiven of course. Being a universalist (not Unitarian Universalist), I follow the Ministry of Reconciliation. I think your "offending" post asked the same questions you had asked earlier, or did it not? I'm thinking we need a refresh...

 

[Lazarus Short]

Daniel9v9 Am I right to understand that the sum of your conviction is based on the idea of a first resurrection where Christ in body rules for a 1000 literal years on earth (Millennium), and all, even those who rejected Christ, have a chance to repent at that time? Can they sin in those days? Can they still reject Christ? If they can't reject Christ in those days, but are indeed saved, that amounts to the same as salvation outside Jesus Christ.

Laz: Those who have rejected Christ will not be resurrected until the 1000 years are ended, IMHO. Can they sin? Rev. 22:15 mentions bad people (dogs) outside the Holy City, but I'm not sure exactly why they are there or at what time, except that it is after the City has come down. These people obviously reject Christ as well, but the bulk of humanity (again, IMHO) is still dead, awaiting the GWTJ. If in fact, the Lake of Fire (compare with the Temple's Brazen Sea) is for refining/purification/salvation, then their salvation does not occur outside the ministry of the Christ.

Daniel9v9 Just as gentle disclaimer, it's certainly not my intention to put words in your mouth, but if this is how you see it, then this view is also unorthodox and problematic with regards to the gospel and what has been revealed to us about God's kingdom and His righteousness - as they have been made known to us through our Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles.

Laz: I see where you are coming from, but my digging into the KJV and realizing the inserted trickery (again, God bless center-column references!), I began to see thing differently. Hints turned into questions, questions impelled answers, and I began to connect the dots (something I'm very good at) in ways that were consistent, but not always in line with official Theology and/or Orthodoxy. You see, it became more and more obvious to me that the Hell theology could not be part of the Gospel, if the Gospel was really Good News. I saw how neutral words were weaponized (to use current jargon), such as "judgment" being turned into "condemnation" or "damnation"; "zeal" turned into "wrath," and the like. I saw clearly how the Holy and Good Creator was made up to be a God of wrath and torture and damnation. Toward the end of my search, I finally found the source of Hell in our English Bibles - in Norse mythology, there is the "goddess" Hel and her realm, Helheim (House of Hel). I also found analogues to "Hell" in several ancient languages of northern Europe, from the days when they were all pagans.
Now if this is problematic to you, all I can say from my POV is that it is all coming together in a consistent way. I have a growing vision of a Good News Gospel, the revelation of a Good and Holy Creator, and His Son Jesus, our Righteousness. I see His parables, such as the 99 sheep + 1 lost sheep in a whole new light. I identify with Jesus, knowing that He was also not in line with the man-approved Theology and Orthodoxy of His day. I hope this rambling discourse answers your question - it's not easy, as we are not on the same page yet, but we will be.

Daniel9v9 Also, I'm curious to how you solve my previous problem: Why do you believe that those who reject Christ are saved when God didn't even spare the angels who abused their free will? Do you think Satan will be saved? Scriptures teach us otherwise. See 2 Peter 2

Laz: I can only answer that we are of much more value than the angels, as we were made in the image of God. We get to judge angels, so "didn't even spare" is not quite on track. Satan saved? We are not told, so speculation is not very useful. I re-read II Peter 2, and it's a matter of interpretation - unlike the damnationist, I believe that God burns away the dross and saves the person, not burns the person in Hellfire forever.

Daniel9v9 Finally, I want to explain the verses you point to in OP in their context:
Leviticus 25:8-13 - In light of the New Testament, we can know that Jesus is the Sabbath rest for Christians. Matthew 12:8 Matthew 11:28 Hebrews 4

Isaiah 1:18 - In light of the New Testament, we know that this too refers to the washing of sins through Christ Jesus. Revelation 7:14 Titus 3:5 1 John 1:7 Titus 2:11-14 Acts 22:14-16 Hebrews 9:14 1 John 1:7

Romans 6:7 - This verse is real key in this particular argument, and I'd like to stress this: Though it reads "For one who has died has been set free from sin" it ONLY applies to people who have died WITH and INTO Christ. In fact, before and after it clearly says:

"For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus." Romans 6:5-11

So, we can NOT read these verses to include people who in their sin and rebellion reject Christ.

Laz: You are probably correct here. I recall Jesus telling the Pharisees that they risked dying in their sins, so that implies they would be resurrected in their sins and then probably be tossed into the LoF. They will suffer loss, but yet be saved when Death is destroyed (the last Enemy) and the LoF will give up its dead just as the literal sea had done so long before.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Lazarus Short]

What do you think Proverbs 15:24 means?
Proverbs 15:24 The way of life [is] above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

may depart from hell beneath

Proverbs 23:14 Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Isaiah 14:9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet [thee] at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, [even] all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

Isaiah 14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.


The NT tells of fire in the place of hell.

Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Adam was not told that his soul would die. Only the body dies the first
kind of death. Man can kill the body but not the soul.

My thesis is not refuted by more quotes containing words mis-translated to "hell." I see that our definitions of "soul" are different too - reread Genesis 2 for the correct take on body, spirit and soul.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Romans 6:6 needs to be read to understand verse 7's group is those under grace, not all people that die.
Those that are wicked will still die in their sins.
/not under grace or mercy

As I told Daniel9v9, you may be correct here, but it does not upset my main thesis.

 

[Lazarus Short]

The op is taking verses that apply to Israel and the church and applying them to the wicked.

The wicked are going to damnation - everlasting
punishment.
God will be angry with them forever.
He will never have mercy on them. They hath no inheritance in the kingdom of God. They will be abhorred on the new earth when others go forth to look at them.

The wicked are not going to everlasting damnation, but to the Lake of Fire. As I keep saying, and no one has stepped forward to contradict me on this, Death is the last enemy to be defeated/destroyed, and is put under the feet of Jesus (I Corinthians 15:21-28). At that time, no one can then be still dead and/or in the LoF and/or in Hades and/or in Hell. Therefore, the wicked must be released, and I'm assuming their dross has been burned up, and they are ready for the Kingdom - but with much suffering along the way...yes it's all supported by Scripture properly understood.

Search the Scriptures - they say, unlike you, that God will NOT be angry with the wicked forever. He will have mercy on them (Romans 11:32). They will, as you say, have no inheritance, for they will have suffered loss (I Corinthians 3:15). That will be far in the future, or so it seems to me, so it leaves gobs of time for the righteous to abhor them.

 

[D2wing]

I am going to pass over the first paragraph because it is worded as a general comment, not directed at me. For the rest, yes, your KJV says there is a Hell, but is it correct? Among other places, I delved into my Oxford English Dictionary, and the great thing about the OED is that its word entries contain snippets of the word going back centuries. For "hell" the earliest date they give is 800 AD or a little after. "Hades" came in about 1600 AD. I also found from the OED that the English "hell" is similar to words in several other north European languages, all having about the same meaning. So this word "hell" was used in place of some Hebrew and Greek words which did not really refer to a place of eternal, conscious torment in fire, as the concept has come down to us. What I am saying is that a word/concept which were foreign to the languages of the Bible was inserted into the text.

Now to answer your unanswered question, yes I believe the whole, entire Bible, line upon line, precept upon precept. My quest began when I saw a depiction of the Tibetan Buddhist Hell, and realized that it was just like the Christian Hell, except for artistic style. Why would that be? Most of my effort revolved around word studies, but I had an "ah ha!" moment when I found where our western Hell had some from. It came from Norse mythology, which contained stories of their goddess Hel and her realm Helheim. I probably don't need to tell you that the pagan Norse believed that Hel was in charge of the dead, at least those who missed out on Valhalla. Hel or Hell - there is no difference except that one of them has made its way into Christian theology.

If you believe in the reality of Hell, consider what God said when railing against Israelite backsliders who were burning their children in the fire to that horrible pagan "god."

"And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart." -Jeremiah 7:31

The same God Who had never thought of or commanded the burning of children is the same God Who failed to tell us that He had created Hell - because He did not. It all hangs together, and the no-Hell teaching simply gets hung up on far fewer texts than the Hell theory - that is, if the Bible is properly translated and words from paganism are left out (but that's the whole problem, yes?). I don't even like seeing the names of pagan "gods" transliterated in the Bible, while the Name That Is Above All Names gets rendered as merely THE LORD. That's one of my pet Biblical peeves.

I see you believe the Bible except words or concepts you do not agree with. Especially in the case of English words that have their origin in other languages. Pagan when the words are coined. Also you reject any concept that was also thought of by pagans. So you really don't believe the Bible is the word of God. You reject the words and concepts you don't agree with. That concept in any language is heresy. You may call it what you like. From your words you really believe there is no punishment for those that reject Christ. Again heresy.

 

[Lazarus Short]

I see you believe the Bible except words or concepts you do not agree with. Especially in the case of English words that have their origin in other languages. Pagan when the words are coined. Also you reject any concept that was also thought of by pagans. So you really don't believe the Bible is the word of God. You reject the words and concepts you don't agree with. That concept in any language is heresy. You may call it what you like. From your words you really believe there is no punishment for those that reject Christ. Again heresy.

You miss the point - I took clues from my KJV's own center-column reference, such as a footnote to "hell," saying, "or sheol." When I tracked down what sheol meant, I could easily see that it did NOT mean Hell. That was my method, whatever you think of my conclusions. So, you have the cart before the horse. Yes, I do believe the Bible is the Word of God, whatever you may say - but if you aren't able to read the original Hebrew or Greek, you will need an honestly translated version in English, and the KJV is not among such versions. I have said over and over that the wicked go into the Lake of Fire, so where does this ["From your words you really believe there is no punishment for those that reject Christ."] come from? I pointed out a few posts ago that they lose their inheritance in the Kingdom, yet you respond as if I stated that the wicked skate into the Kingdom under a rain of rose petals...

Historically, the early Church believed and taught the eventual salvation of all. Rome went over to ECT first, followed by most of Christendom when the fire-forever crowd had acquired enough power to banish and persecute the early universalists. They even changed words in the Bible, and I found it over and over and over. That's little-known but true, and that makes the damnationists the real heretics, but you know something? I don't like that term either.

 

[Light of the East]

The op is taking verses that apply to Israel and the church and applying them to the wicked.

The wicked are going to damnation - everlasting
punishment.

No one is sure about this. No one has come back to definitively say that there is eternal punishment for souls that sin in temporal time.

God will be angry with them forever.

No, God loves even them. I remember when Osama Bin Laden died and some people reminded us that God loves even Osama. We are the ones who find hate so easy - because we are broken and not like God at all.


He will never have mercy on them. They hath no inheritance in the kingdom of God. They will be abhorred on the new earth when others go forth to look at them.

 

[Light of the East]

I see you believe the Bible except words or concepts you do not agree with. Especially in the case of English words that have their origin in other languages. Pagan when the words are coined. Also you reject any concept that was also thought of by pagans. So you really don't believe the Bible is the word of God.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so sad. It is you who doesn't accept the words in Greek, which is the original language and not English (or whatever your language is).

And your last sentence is a judgmental and mean-spirited attack with no basis in truth. What the OP doesn't accept is your particular translation of the Scriptures.

You reject the words and concepts you don't agree with.

And you aren't doing the same thing????

That concept in any language is heresy. You may call it what you like. From your words you really believe there is no punishment for those that reject Christ.

Patristic Universalism does not say there is no punishment for wicked behavior. And the OP has made this quite clear also, but apparently you either ignored what he said or don't care.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Light of the East, thanks for watching my six!

 

[Light of the East]

Light of the East, thanks for watching my six!

NP. I am studying and thinking about Patristic Universalism with a hope that it is the truth. There are some problems I encounter, but I find it strange that people want to damn me to hell because I think that God is love and actually does love people.