Are there further chances after death?

[Ceallaigh]

Nonsense. That is a common copout espoused by the Hell No! crowd. But there was a belief in Israel before and during the time of Jesus at least 14 centuries before the time of Dante of a place of eternal fiery punishment and the Jews called it both sheol and Ge Hinnom transliterated as hades and Gehenna in both the 225BC LXX and the NT 14.
The more likely scenario is Dante's inferno was appropriated from the Jewish belief.
…..According to these three incontrovertible Jewish sources quoted below; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud., among the יהודים/Yehudim/ιουδαιων/Youdaion/Jews in Israel, before and during the time of Jesus, there was a significant belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom, which are translated Hades and Gehenna, respectively, in both the 225 BC LXX and the NT.
…..There were different factions within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. These differing beliefs do not alter or disprove anything in the following post.

[1] Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);[“Soon” in this verse would be about 700 BC +/-]​

[Note: this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA]

(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell(B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch [x. 6, xci. 9, etal] also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according toIsa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
[2] Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-Rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
…..During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; ). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
Gehinnom
http://www.jevzajcg.me/enciklopedia/Encyclopaedia Judaica, v. 07 (Fey-Gor).pdf
= = = = = = = = = =
[3] Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [i.e. followers of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]:
"And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written[Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more.
Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces." Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

​

You did a good job of formatting this so that it's easier to read. But I have read it already seeing as you post this same spiel practically on a daily basis. I'm not sure at this point if you're having a problem with your faculties or just trolling the "Hell No! crowd".

 

[Der Alte]

Let's try this one then:

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.
1 Cor. 15:28​

Here's Gregory of Nyssa's commentary on the verse:
"What therefore is the scope of Paul's argument in this place [1 Cor. 15:28]? That the nature of evil, at length, be wholly exterminated, and divine, immortal goodness embraces within itself every rational creature; so that of all who were made by God, not one shall be excluded from his Kingdom. All the viciousness, that like a corrupt matter is mingled in things, shall be dissolved and consumed in the furnace of purgatorial fire; and everything that had its origin from God, shall be restored to its pristine state of purity."
Tract, in Dictum Apostoli, Tunc etiam ipse Filius subjicietur, and c.p. 137, and seqq.
Gregory of Nyssa was a universalist. He is called the "the father of fathers" and made a large contribution to the Nicene Creed and the doctrine of the Trinity and so can hardly be dismissed as a heretic.
Do you disagree with his interpretation?

I guess ol' Greg never heard of these verses also written by Paul. Twenty two [22] groups of people who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God. And Paul didn't say someday they will have an inheritance.

1) 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
2) Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
3) Ephesian 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
4) 1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

A little suggestion. When looking for proof texts don't stop there look for verses which do not support you UR assumptions/presuppositions. See above.​

 

[Basil the Great]

Some Eastern Orthodox believe that a portion of those who are now residing in Hades and bound for Hell might yet escape their fate and move onto to be with those receiving a foretaste of Heaven, but that this can only take place before the Final Judgment. It seems that the prayers of those still alive are the key in this matter. I hesitate to add that not all Orthodox believe this to be a possibility and even among those who subscribe to this scenario, I get the sense that they believe that that it may only apply to a relatively small portion of those now in a state of damnation.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Some Eastern Orthodox believe that a portion of those who are now residing in Hades and bound for Hell might yet escape their fate and move onto to be with those receiving a foretaste of Heaven, but that this can only take place before the Final Judgment. It seems that the prayers of those still alive are the key in this matter. I hesitate to add that not all Orthodox believe this to be a possibility and even among those who subscribe to this scenario, I get the sense that they believe that that it may only apply to a relatively small portion of those now in a state of damnation.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

ALL I did was quote scripture, without any commentary from me, so how can Jesus disagree with that?
This passage says nothing about all mankind being saved, righteous and unrighteous alike, no matter what even after death. It does say where Lazarus is nobody on the other side can cross over.

Please explain how this says all mankind will be saved, the good and the bad, no matter what, even after death?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said: "all mankind will be saved, the good and the bad, no matter what, even after death".

You miss quoted scripture to try to say that there is no conciseness after death, Jesus very words prove there is life after death. That is what those scriptures were about.

 

[Hmm]

Great video. I found a transcript of it at The Gospel in Chairs | and copied it below to help anyone who may want to discuss it.

The talk, "The Gospel in Chairs", compares the Protestant the Eastern Orthodox view of salvation.

It says this about the EO view:

"For those who love Me, My love is like light and warmth, but to those who hate Me and close their eyes against My life, My love is like a consuming fire."

But makes the point that this is not a punitive fire, as Protestants usually assume, but a purifying fire. In the end, "There is no place that we can hide from God’s love for us, that flows from his heart, like a river of fire."

Transcript:

"My name is Steve Robinson and many of you know me from my podcast, “Our Life in Christ”. For over ten years I’ve been looking for a real succinct illustration of the difference between Protestant view of salvation and the Orthodox view of salvation.

This is the gospel in chairs.

The Protestant view of salvation goes something like this.

In the beginning, God created man, and man had perfect fellowship with God, but then in the garden man sinned and he turned away from God. Because God is so holy and righteous, He cannot look upon man any longer, because man is sinful. No matter what man does, no matter how hard man tries, no matter how righteous man is after he has sinned, God still cannot look upon his righteousness and holiness, because man is still sinful. No amount of good works can repay God for the offence that man has given Him. So man is in a constant state of separation from God. But God in His love for man, sends his son Jesus Christ, who becomes man and lives as we should have lived, in perfect communion and in sinlessness before God. Then at the end of His life, Jesus Christ is crucified. When He is crucified, God does the unthinkable. He lays all of the sin of a human race on his Son. When He does that, because He is holy and righteous, he turns his back on His own Son. The Son experiences the fullness of the wrath of God against us, in our stead. Now we sinners, if we believe that Jesus Christ has done this, if we believe that Jesus Christ has died for our sins, we too, can now have this perfect fellowship with God once again. Because when God looks at us sinners, He no longer sees us, and He no longer sees our sins, He sees Jesus Christ and His blood. We are covered in the blood of the Lamb. We are, as Martin Luther said, “Snow covered dung”. Or as RC Sproul put it, “Jesus Christ is now our asbestos suit against the white-hot wrath of God against sinners”. But, if the human being who is sinful does not believe in Jesus Christ and His righteousness, and accept the righteousness of Christ in his stead, then God cannot look upon him. In the end, the sinner will be cast into hell, in eternal separation from God, suffering the full punishment that he deserves in his sins, because he has not accepted the sacrifice of Christ. So in a nutshell that’s the Protestant view of salvation.

The Orthodox view of salvation begins much the same way.

In the beginning God creates man in His image, and in perfect communion with Him, and then in the garden, man sins. In his sin, man subjects all creation and himself to futility, corruption, and death. But God, because God is life, and because His love can not bare to see his creation subjected to futility and death. So God becomes man.

When the woman in her brokenness and her corruption goes from relationship to relationship seeking and thirsting after true love, God sits down beside her at the well and He says, “ I am the water of life. I love you.”

When the man uses his fellow-countrymen for career and for money, and is ostracized and alienated from his own countrymen, an outcast from his own people, God says, “Come down from the tree. I will eat with you”

When the woman is caught in adultery and is cast before God, God says, “I do not condemn you. Go your way, sin no more”.

When the man experiences the corruption of the creation, the futility of random illness, the death of innocence, and the despair of loneliness, God says, “Take up your pallet and walk”. God says, “Tabitha arise!” God says, “Go in peace”.

When man, in fear, and cowardice, and envy, and jealousy, and greed, and political ambition take God and betray Him, and spit on Him, and beat Him, and crucify him, God says, “I forgive you”.

When man experiences the final separation and utter dissolution and separation from God and dies, God says, “Love is stronger than death, even though you make your bed in Sheol, l am there”.

And God dies.

But God says, “I am life, and in the power of my life, and the power of my resurrection, all will be raised with me”. And now there is no place where God is not. There’s no place to escape from the love of God. There is no place that we can hide from God’s love for us, that flows from his heart, like a river of fire. God says, “For those who love me, my love is like light and warmth, but to those who hate me and close their eyes against my life, my love is like a consuming fire”. So that’s the Orthodox view of salvation, in a nutshell, it’s not perfect, but that’s how we view the love of God.

In our paschal hymn we sing, “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and to those in the tombs bestowing life”. That’s the core of the gospel of our salvation"

 

[Derf]

That was an interesting description of the two views. I must say I had a hard time following the orthodox description. I understood his words, but I had a hard time discerning what God is saving us from. Is it merely from each separate act of sin? From multiple times we turn away from God? Does that mean Man can return to God at any time? It appears so from the chairs (only the "Man" chair" ever turns away). Is the crucifixion merely a generous act that God performs to attract Man back to Him? It seems to be missing something.

I'll admit I've grown up with the protestant view, so perhaps that's why I get it better, and still subscribe to it, mostly. And the things I no longer agree with in the protestant view perhaps tend toward something similar to the EO view. The most obvious is that the big problem from Man's sin in the Garden is that he is subjected to futility and death. But why is that a problem? That's a problem because God seems to want to restore man to a position he had before with God--without futility and death. But why can't He do that without crucifying His son? That's what is missing from the EO description. If the death is necessary, it is necessary for a reason. The protestant view provides a reason, which is to save man from the second death. I think it's to save man from the first death. Only the first death was considered a penalty for sin--God never said, "if you eat of that tree, you will die twice."

But I'm willing to concede that Jesus' life, both before and after death, was intended to prepare Man to avoid the second death. Only those that believe in His act of saving us from the first death can avoid the second one, but I don't see why that can't apply to those that died before Jesus came to earth as a man (as an example), or before they heard about the gospel, except they don't really know about it enough to believe in it, perhaps until they are saved from the first death.

 

[Fervent]

That was an interesting description of the two views. I must say I had a hard time following the orthodox description. I understood his words, but I had a hard time discerning what God is saving us from. Is it merely from each separate act of sin? From multiple times we turn away from God? Does that mean Man can return to God at any time? It appears so from the chairs (only the "Man" chair" ever turns away). Is the crucifixion merely a generous act that God performs to attract Man back to Him? It seems to be missing something.

I'll admit I've grown up with the protestant view, so perhaps that's why I get it better, and still subscribe to it, mostly. And the things I no longer agree with in the protestant view perhaps tend toward something similar to the EO view. The most obvious is that the big problem from Man's sin in the Garden is that he is subjected to futility and death. But why is that a problem? That's a problem because God seems to want to restore man to a position he had before with God--without futility and death. But why can't He do that without crucifying His son? That's what is missing from the EO description. If the death is necessary, it is necessary for a reason. The protestant view provides a reason, which is to save man from the second death. I think it's to save man from the first death. Only the first death was considered a penalty for sin--God never said, "if you eat of that tree, you will die twice."

But I'm willing to concede that Jesus' life, both before and after death, was intended to prepare Man to avoid the second death. Only those that believe in His act of saving us from the first death can avoid the second one, but I don't see why that can't apply to those that died before Jesus came to earth as a man (as an example), or before they heard about the gospel, except they don't really know about it enough to believe in it, perhaps until they are saved from the first death.

The God chair never needs be turned around. If God turned His back on man, Jesus would not have gone to the cross. The cross is about changing our situation, not God's disposition. God remains unchanged, but the gospel changes us.

 

[Derf]

The God chair never needs be turned around. If God turned His back on man, Jesus would not have gone to the cross. The cross is about changing our situation, not God's disposition. God remains unchanged, but the gospel changes us.

I can see that, and thanks for restating it in that way. But if the problem is death (of whatever kind), how does Jesus Christ's selfless laying down of His life correct that problem? Why does Jesus' death fix our death?

 

[Fervent]

I can see that, and thanks for restating it in that way. But if the problem is death (of whatever kind), how does Jesus Christ's selfless laying down of His life correct that problem? Why does Jesus' death fix our death?

By swallowing up death in victory.

The focus is more on the resurrection than the death itself.

 

[Derf]

By swallowing up death in victory.

The focus is more on the resurrection than the death itself.

Why does He, personally, need to have some kind of victory over death to resurrect us? Is that victory somehow applicable to all? Why?

 

[Fervent]

Why does He, personally, need to have some kind of victory over death to resurrect us? Is that victory somehow applicable to all? Why?

He doesn't need it, but there is something in us that needs it in this particular way. By His stripes we are healed. This partly comes down to different views of sin, as Eastern theologians tend to view it as a sickness not purely as a matter of guilt. The victory is accessible to all, but it is only effective for those who appropriate it.

 

[Derf]

He doesn't need it, but there is something in us that needs it in this particular way. By His stripes we are healed. This partly comes down to different views of sin, as Eastern theologians tend to view it as a sickness not purely as a matter of guilt. The victory is accessible to all, but it is only effective for those who appropriate it.

[Heb 9:12, 14 KJV] 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. ... 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

It seems like we need eternal redemption. It also seems like Christ obtained eternal redemption by His own blood.

But I can see in that second verse that our conscience is also purged from dead works by His blood, so that we can serve God.

Here, though, we can see that the blood was necessary in the earthly realm as a picture of what was necessary in the heavenly realm.

Please don't think me argumentative. I appreciate the different take on it, and whether I agree with it or not, it helps to contrast it with what I see in scripture.

 

[Fervent]

[Heb 9:12, 14 KJV] 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]. ... 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

It seems like we need eternal redemption. It also seems like Christ obtained eternal redemption by His own blood.

But I can see in that second verse that our conscience is also purged from dead works by His blood, so that we can serve God.

Here, though, we can see that the blood was necessary in the earthly realm as a picture of what was necessary in the heavenly realm.

Please don't think me argumentative. I appreciate the different take on it, and whether I agree with it or not, it helps to contrast it with what I see in scripture.

I appreciate the questions, atonement theology is a complex one because there is truth in most of the positions. It's more than simply purging of the conscience, but a physical cleansing. Sin blemishes us and severs the connection with the divine in us but does not destroy the imago dei. Mortally wounded, but not dead, essentially. Sin is like a cancer, intertwined with out beings. Christ's blood immediately kills the cancer and restores our connection with the Divine. Our flesh is cleansed from the impurity of sin. Sin is remitted entirely, not simply forgiven but undone.

 

[Faith Unites]

Why does He, personally, need to have some kind of victory over death to resurrect us? Is that victory somehow applicable to all? Why?

If we step outside of the scripture for just a moment and attempt to look at it from a philosophical stance then I think we can arrive at the same conclusion of the needed sacrifice. Our standard for living is the character of God. Whether or not you believe in original sin, everyone has fallen short and sinned. What is sin? Sin is the choosing to private the character of God. In essence sin is the bridge we take from good to evil. So, if the bar is God then there is simply no way we can return to His presence without some sort of divine intervention. That bridge is a one way ticket into Gods antithesis. That’s where the sacrifice comes in. A life for a life. But with God it is a life for all lives. TBH I can’t really think of some other way God could ever redeem us. If you have an idea on that I’m all ears. Now I do not think this means universalism for just as we chose to private the character of God and spiritually died in return, we must choose to accept his sacrifice, die to ourselves, receive His life and follow Him.

 

[Der Alte]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never said: "all mankind will be saved, the good and the bad, no matter what, even after death".

That is what Universal Reconciliation means.

You miss quoted scripture to try to say that there is no conciseness after death, ...

Prove it! Show me where I misquoted any scripture.

...Jesus very words prove there is life after death. That is what those scriptures were about.

Yes there is life after death. What there is not is some kind of conscious existence after death before the resurrection and judgement where the unrighteous get a second chance.

 

[Derf]

I appreciate the questions, atonement theology is a complex one because there is truth in most of the positions. It's more than simply purging of the conscience, but a physical cleansing. Sin blemishes us and severs the connection with the divine in us but does not destroy the imago dei. Mortally wounded, but not dead, essentially. Sin is like a cancer, intertwined with out beings. Christ's blood immediately kills the cancer and restores our connection with the Divine. Our flesh is cleansed from the impurity of sin. Sin is remitted entirely, not simply forgiven but undone.

Undone in one sense, perhaps, but not another. The death of the flesh, or at least changing from a mortal body to an immortal body is still required, so it seems like the flesh can't be cleansed, but must be changed out in some way. Your cancer analogy is probably an apt one, except it is metastasized and there doesn't seem to be a cure for it in this body.

I think your "mortally wounded" description fits well with the scriptures that say we are "dead in our trespasses and sins". That is, we are inescapably going to die without some kind of help. When we believe in Christ, we have new life in Him, but it still isn't applied to our bodies. Our mortal bodies appear to be a lost cause.

 

[Hmm]

The opinion of one heretical ECF does NOT invalidate the words of scripture

Why do you label Gregory of Nyssa a heretic because he doesn't believe in ECT? The Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed don’t say anything about ECT and there's nothing in scripture that I know of that points to us having to believe in an everlasting hell in order to follow Christ.

You're always asking others to back up their views with evidence so what's yours for this accusation? Or is this just, horror of horrors, a subjective and unsupported opinion?

 

[Hmm]

Yes there is life after death. What there is not is some kind of conscious existence after death before the resurrection and judgement where the unrighteous get a second chance.

Again, this is simply your personal opinion. NT Wright, who is by almost every account regarded as the world's leading Pauline theologian and scholar, would not agree with you. One of his pet phrases is "life after life after death".

He explains what he means by this in an interview with ABC News:

"Heaven is important but it's not our final destination," he explained. "If you want to say that when someone dies they go to heaven, fine. But that's only a temporary holding pattern that is life after death. And what I'm much more interested in, or the New Testament is much more interested in, is what I've called life after life after death.

I've often put it like this, if somebody you know has been very ill, you say, 'Poor old so and so, he's just a shadow of his former self.' And the extraordinary truth in the New Testament is that if you are in Christ and dwell by the spirit you are just a shadow of your future self," Wright said. "There is a real you to which the present you corresponds as a photocopy corresponds to the glorious original. You know, there is a real you, which God is going to make and it will be more physical -- more real, not less.

We aren't ultimately destined for a spiritual place called heaven. He says that at the end of time as we know it, God will literally remake our physical bodies and return us to a newly restored planet. This is the new Heaven and the new earth spoke about in Revelations 21 which Wright says will materialise when God decides to rebuild and restore the universe "Heaven and earth joined together in a new reality."

In the meantime, we go to heaven to be with Jesus in a fully conscious "life after death" as did the thief on the cross to whom Jesus said "Today you will be with me in paradise". It wouldn't be much of a paradise if the thief simply slept throughout it all.

 

[Der Alte]

Why do you label Gregory of Nyssa a heretic because he doesn't believe in ECT? The Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed don’t say anything about ECT and there's nothing in scripture that I know of that points to us having to believe in an everlasting hell in order to follow Christ.
You're always asking others to back up their views with evidence so what's yours for this accusation? Or is this just, horror of horrors, a subjective and unsupported opinion?

Back up there pardner. What evidence does ol' Greg provide for his heretical views? I'll wait I got plenty of time. This is more or less my "job."