Hell

[~Anastasia~]

I agree. You are stating exactly what the parable says. I think what we're discussing is what it means.

But quite simply, do you think Jesus would say that people have experiences after death that may be torment, to the crowds of simple people, but not MEAN that?

This begins to make God a liar, a deceiver.

No, Jesus used simple and true things to express truths.

 

[Almost there]

I'm go


You are missing the point. Your hermeneutic approach is based on gut instinct or what you want the scripture to say. You are constructing a Biblical narrative based on your own imagination. The text is the text. It says what it says. You have been given a direct challenge to your use of the text AND you were given a challenge to show where Jesus used some kind of fantasy in a parable. If Jesus did tell a parable about the afterlife it would have been a major deviation from His pattern to use a fantastic setting that was not based in reality. You have failed to address these issues which are valid and serious flaws in your approach.

I disagree. Thing is, I'm arguing that parable is not at all about the afterlife. Just as the parable of the sower is not about farming, and the parable about the lost coin is not about money. Like both of those, it is a parable about something else. And that something else is covered at the end.

Two important points:
1. The rich man had five brothers. Not four. Not three. Not eight.
2. The request to warn the brothers and Jesus response.

I'm not making anything up out of whole cloth. I'm using scripture as precisely as I can, within the context of the scripture immediately surrounding it as well as the books of the bible in general.

What, specifically, have I come up short on?

 

[Almost there]

Please stop commenting on posts that ask for the Orthodox view.

Anastasia opened this thread specifically so that we could discuss this.

 

[Almost there]

Not bad. I don't know who Ed Fudge is, but Scripture calls God a consuming fire.

We would not disagree. The issue we have is in saying the condemned cease to exist.

I heard about him when discussing the book "Four views of hell", where apologists for each position were allowed to state their cases, with rebuttals. https://www.amazon.com/Four-Views-Hell-William-Crockett/dp/0310212685

His book is titled "The Fire that Consumes", and well worth a read.
https://www.amazon.com/Fire-That-Co...rd_wg=OC9gS&psc=1&refRID=8Q3QD8C3WHNMTQK6V4QP

He recently died.

 

[Almost there]

It is my understanding that the consuming fire of God consumes sin, not the God breathed soul.

If you are saved and have been born of the spirit, that is true. The unsaved soul is not much more resilient than the "God breathed" soul of any other animal. I see the soul as the "you" that occupies this body that Paul calls a tent. The software (mind) that runs on the hardware called the brain. That soul is not immortal. The born again spirit is immortal. It's a protective covering that could, maybe, be likened to the cleansing blood of the lamb. But I'm being VERY metaphorical here and just thinking out loud.

We don't really know the particulars. The bible explanations are almost like trying to explain the color red to a blind man.

Sure would like to know what the seven thunders said.

 

[Almost there]

What is difference in the “Jewish, nor the Christian version of eternity”?


One is saved by belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ or they are not there are no alternative eternities.

Depends on who you talk to. The Saducees, for example, did not believe in life after death at all. The viewpoint was definitely different from the Christian viewpoint which enjoys the understanding brought by the teaching of Jesus and His disciples.

 

[Almost there]

Mark 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.



What does the phrase “the fire is not quenched” mean to you? I take it literally.

Yes. The fire is not quenched. What happens to the organic material thrown into it?

And can an unquenchable fire go out? Yep! You just can't put it out. It has to run out of fuel. When the fire department comes to a fire that is just too big to put out, they don't even try to quench it. They just hose down the stuff around it until it goes out on its own.

Did you read any of the scriptures in that big list I supplied?

 

[HereIStand]

Those that accept Jesus free gift go on to eternity with Him. Those that refuse His free gift are destroyed. Gone. Like they never existed. I see it as the Ecclesiastes thing. They live their lives like animals, finding what happiness they can, and then, like animals, they die. Except their soul is killed in the Second Death. Hence the use of the word, "death".

I read the book Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment by Robert Peterson. He makes a solid argument. Would recommend it. He includes this quote from Augustine's City of God,

what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, "These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal!" Matthew 25:46 If both destinies are "eternal," then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative — on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.

 

[Postvieww]

Yes. The fire is not quenched. What happens to the organic material thrown into it?

And can an unquenchable fire go out? Yep! You just can't put it out. It has to run out of fuel. When the fire department comes to a fire that is just too big to put out, they don't even try to quench it. They just hose down the stuff around it until it goes out on its own.

Did you read any of the scriptures in that big list I supplied?

"Where their worm dieth not,"

 

[Almost there]

I don't know if we would even say that it consumes sin. Is sin removed from that person? Frankly we have no such sure teaching either way, and cannot have, because it was not given to us in the deposit of faith.

What we believe is that the soul was created to exist eternally. Further, God LOVES those souls. They cannot bear His presence or His love and reject it, however.

So as long as they exist in the condition of being opposed to God their "worm dieth not" and the "smoke of their torment ascends forever".

Re: the soul was created to exist eternally

I think that may be true, but Adam's sin changed that. I think it CAN exist eternally, which is why Christ died and was resurrected, but since I am not a universalist, I do not believe that they all do. Those that accept Christ's free gift I do believe will exist eternally.

i.e. I do not believe all souls are eternal, but eternal life is what we are offered if we accept His free gift. Otherwise, death.

BTW, the worm and smoke thing is a reference to Isaiah and is actually talking about destroying dead corpses. What Does Jesus Mean by 'Their Worm Does Not Die' (Mark 9:44, 46, 48)?

 

[Almost there]

When scripture plainly states it is a parable case closed. When it does not it would be wise not to assume it is. IMHO

Almost none of the accepted parables are stated to be parables. The lost sheep, the great banquet, etc. It is accepted that they are partly because it is clear that they are and partly because it says clearly in matthew that that is how he taught lessons to the crowds. If Jesus is in the act of teaching in his verbiage to a crowd, it is a parable. You can bank on it. It is what the bible says he did.

 

[Almost there]

But quite simply, do you think Jesus would say that people have experiences after death that may be torment, to the crowds of simple people, but not MEAN that?

This begins to make God a liar, a deceiver.

No, Jesus used simple and true things to express truths.

No, I don't. Again, I must invoke the "through a glass darkly" rule, but I can see the souls of the lost being cast into a lake of fire, outer darkness, whatever metaphor we want to use, and as they are cast there, it is kinda like being thrown off a cliff. Would you not weep in sadness (seeing all of those who were not thrown off the cliff going on to eternal bliss while you are quickly approaching the rocks below) or grand your teeth in anger at being powerless to control your destiny, facing the rocks below no matter what you try to do?

That's how I see it. Yep. There is gonna be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

And then it is finished.

 

[Postvieww]

Did you read any of the scriptures in that big list I supplied?

If I understand you correctly, some of your beliefs on the scriptures you posted do not allow you to take other scriptures literally on the topic of hell. Just food for thought, what if those scriptures I take literally on hell don’t support your view on the scriptures you think nullifies them? Anyway we are going to disagree on this, but I do appreciate the civil discourse.

I believe the doctrine of soul sleep or the wicked ceasing to exist is not scriptural. You and I both can list our “proof” scriptures but there has to be a way to make them all harmonize, there can be no contradictions. I choose not to nullify the words of Jesus .

 

[Almost there]

I read the book Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment by Robert Peterson. He makes a solid argument. Would recommend it. He includes this quote from Augustine's City of God,

what a fond fancy is it to suppose that eternal punishment means long continued punishment, while eternal life means life without end, since Christ in the very same passage spoke of both in similar terms in one and the same sentence, "These shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal!" Matthew 25:46 If both destinies are "eternal," then we must either understand both as long-continued but at last terminating, or both as endless. For they are correlative — on the one hand, punishment eternal, on the other hand, life eternal. And to say in one and the same sense, life eternal shall be endless, punishment eternal shall come to an end, is the height of absurdity. Wherefore, as the eternal life of the saints shall be endless, so too the eternal punishment of those who are doomed to it shall have no end.

It's really so simple. Before we can intelligently discuss it, we must ask what IS the punishment being spoken of. And the bible is pretty clear. The punishment is death. It was first brought up in Genesis 3, and is a common and thick thread throughout the 66 books in the bible. The condition is eternal. One goes to eternal life and "stays alive". The other goes to death and "stays dead". Both conditions are eternal, but only one is conscious, for only one is alive. This is why the bible juxtaposes the two so often.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Re: the soul was created to exist eternally

I think that may be true, but Adam's sin changed that. I think it CAN exist eternally, which is why Christ died and was resurrected, but since I am not a universalist, I do not believe that they all do. Those that accept Christ's free gift I do believe will exist eternally.

i.e. I do not believe all souls are eternal, but eternal life is what we are offered if we accept His free gift. Otherwise, death.

BTW, the worm and smoke thing is a reference to Isaiah and is actually talking about destroying dead corpses. What Does Jesus Mean by 'Their Worm Does Not Die' (Mark 9:44, 46, 48)?

You are correct that Adam's sin changed things but in the case you mention, it changed the physical aspect. Adam's sin is the reason bodies die and must be resurrected incorruptible (never to physically die again).


The problem we run into - as is common when discussing things in this way - is that one passage from the Bible can be interpreted this way, and another might seem to say the opposite. Of course that cannot be. The truth must be understood to encompass all of them.

I see your reasoning in other posts likening man's spirit to that of an animal, but it just isn't so. Man was created to be special from the animals, in the very image and likeness of God. We die as a result of Adams sin, but Christ has effectively reversed that with His resurrection. Our souls are still distinct from those of animals.

 

[Almost there]

If I understand you correctly, some of your beliefs on the scriptures you posted do not allow you to take other scriptures literally on the topic of hell. Just food for thought, what if those scriptures I take literally on hell don’t support your view on the scriptures you think nullifies them? Anyway we are going to disagree on this, but I do appreciate the civil discourse.

I believe the doctrine of soul sleep or the wicked ceasing to exist is not scriptural. You and I both can list our “proof” scriptures but there has to be a way to make them all harmonize, there can be no contradictions. I choose not to nullify the words of Jesus .

Well, I try not to take Revelation too literally.

The seven churches are not lampstands, Jesus is not a lamb and the second death is not a lake of fire. But all three make the point they need to make. Everybody knows what happens when you throw a living thing into a lake of fire. Try it some time. Heck, just make a fire pit and find a dead raccoon on the road somewhere. Throw it in and see what happens.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't know if we would even say that it consumes sin. Is sin removed from that person? Frankly we have no such sure teaching either way, and cannot have, because it was not given to us in the deposit of faith.

What we believe is that the soul was created to exist eternally. Further, God LOVES those souls. They cannot bear His presence or His love and reject it, however.

So as long as they exist in the condition of being opposed to God their "worm dieth not" and the "smoke of their torment ascends forever".

I recall some Orthodox posting in the past that some Orthodox hold out hope for ultimate reconciliation with the exception if some don't repent. Kindly confirm if this is an Orthodox teaching.
.
(Next thought)
.
For me, the separation of sin and the creation was illustrated in Romans 7 where Paul disassociated from sin, made it seem like the sin was acting on its own.

I have adapted this for use in spiritual warfare to confess sin essence so it disappears. (1 John 1:9)
.
In delving through the thoughts related to this subject I get the distinct impression there will be different tasks for us when we are redeemed and in the resurrection bodies.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

If you are saved and have been born of the spirit, that is true. The unsaved soul is not much more resilient than the "God breathed" soul of any other animal. I see the soul as the "you" that occupies this body that Paul calls a tent. The software (mind) that runs on the hardware called the brain. That soul is not immortal. The born again spirit is immortal. It's a protective covering that could, maybe, be likened to the cleansing blood of the lamb. But I'm being VERY metaphorical here and just thinking out loud.

We don't really know the particulars. The bible explanations are almost like trying to explain the color red to a blind man.

Sure would like to know what the seven thunders said.

Since the soul is God breathed (and there is scripture on this) I tend to believe that which God sent out will not come back to him void/empty/unfulfilled.

 

[truefiction1]

Since none of us were there, we can only speculate. One of those speculations I've heard is that it was actually based on a popular story at the time. What is kind of interesting is that it is clearly not talking about eternity since it does not describe either the Jewish, nor the Christian version of eternity. And it doesn't describe the time between the death of the body and the GWTJ in Jewish nor Christian viewpoints.

And it seems to be about the 5 brothers and, key, the "not believing even if someone is raised from the dead". It appears to be Jesus talking to the descendants of Joseph and looking forward to their impending disbelief even after Jesus' resurrection.

And there is no information about the rich man to suggest that he did anything warranting eternal torture. In fact, there is a chart on the site I linked to that demonstrates that the actual actions of the two men do not warrant either of their conditions, unless one would argue that poverty is, at its core, a virtue of some sort, and being rich, at it's core, is a sin. I'm buying neither of those ideas.

Poverty can be a great blessing in terms of enriching one with treasure in heaven, where material wealth/riches is very often a great curse, being such and obstacle as it usually is in the narrow way that leads to entry into the kingdom of God. This is one of the things that Jesus was showing. It even says so: "But Abraham answered, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things. But now he is comforted here, while you are left to suffer." (Luke 16:25)

So did you really mean to say that you're not buying it when our Lord says that Abraham told the rich man that he was suffering in the afterlife because he chose to let others suffer in this life when he should have shared what he had with those who were suffering instead of selfishly squandering it on his own sinful desires for personal enjoyment? (Could I have written a longer sentence?)

 

[Almost there]

You are correct that Adam's sin changed things but in the case you mention, it changed the physical aspect. Adam's sin is the reason bodies die and must be resurrected incorruptible (never to physically die again).


The problem we run into - as is common when discussing things in this way - is that one passage from the Bible can be interpreted this way, and another might seem to say the opposite. Of course that cannot be. The truth must be understood to encompass all of them.

I see your reasoning in other posts likening man's spirit to that of an animal, but it just isn't so. Man was created to be special from the animals, in the very image and likeness of God. We die as a result of Adams sin, but Christ has effectively reversed that with His resurrection. Our souls are still distinct from those of animals.

I just came across this site a few months ago. It covers that very, VERY well:
Believe What the Jewish Apostles Taught -- Why Conditional Immortality Is True and Biblical

And I do believe man was created to be special. However, I think that the distinction made regarding the spiritual man and the natural man sums it up. The natural man is the "animal" we occupy. It has all of its wants and needs just like any other animal. It is the spiritual man that puts it in check along with the "image of God" attributes our soul carries.

I see it as sort of the "law written on their hearts" thing. That is, even those that completely reject God at least think they have a moral compass. And many of them do a lot of good things.

But this is mostly just speculation on my part, trying to make sense out of stuff that is way above any human's pay grade.