The nature of hell?

ilovechloe said:

if

If hell is a real thing, how come it never got mentioned in the O.T? If hell was always there, you would think that god would have thought to have mentioned it at some time to his chosen people. How come it was only to the authors of the Christian bible that God suddenly decided it was important to mention it?

Click to expand...

Jesus spoke of hell as a real place, so if you want to say that Jesus wasn't telling the truth about, then that is up to you.

Oscarr said:

Jesus spoke of hell as a real place, so if you want to say that Jesus wasn't telling the truth about, then that is up to you.

Click to expand...

It is only reported that Jesus spoke of hell. I didn't hear him speak it.

Did he really talk about hell, or were the words put in his mouth by the gospel writers?

Anyway, I know we will disagree about that, but you made no attempt to answer the question of why hell suddenly appeared in the N.T., when the Jewish scriptures were apparently around for at least 4 centuries before the N.T.

I find it very odd that God would neglect to mention it to the Jews!

ilovechloe said:

It is only reported that Jesus spoke of hell. I didn't hear him speak it.

Did he really talk about hell, or were the words put in his mouth by the gospel writers?

Anyway, I know we will disagree about that, but you made no attempt to answer the question of why hell suddenly appeared in the N.T., when the Jewish scriptures were apparently around for at least 4 centuries before the N.T.

I find it very odd that God would neglect to mention it to the Jews!

Click to expand...

Old testament refers to it as Sheol

ilovechloe said:

It is only reported that Jesus spoke of hell. I didn't hear him speak it.

Did he really talk about hell, or were the words put in his mouth by the gospel writers?

Anyway, I know we will disagree about that, but you made no attempt to answer the question of why hell suddenly appeared in the N.T., when the Jewish scriptures were apparently around for at least 4 centuries before the N.T.

I find it very odd that God would neglect to mention it to the Jews!

Click to expand...

Yes, it does sound odd. It is interesting though that when Jesus talked to the Jews about hell, they seemed to understand what He was talking about. But then we will disagree about it, and so we may need to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Jamdoc said:

Old testament refers to it as Sheol

Click to expand...

With all due respect to our friend, if everything that Jesus said was merely put in his mouth by the gospel writers then we cannot know whether we are genuinely saved, because our eternal future is totally dependent on the words of Jesus to be absolutely true. If we can't depend on what Jesus or Paul said there is no way that we can have any assurance of salvation at all. Therefore our profession of faith would just be empty and of no value.

Oscarr said:

With all due respect to our friend, if everything that Jesus said was merely put in his mouth by the gospel writers then we cannot know whether we are genuinely saved, because our eternal future is totally dependent on the words of Jesus to be absolutely true. If we can't depend on what Jesus or Paul said there is no way that we can have any assurance of salvation at all. Therefore our profession of faith would just be empty and of no value.

Click to expand...

I was just saying that their statement that Hell is only a new testament thing was off. It's just called a different name.

Jamdoc said:

I was just saying that their statement that Hell is only a new testament thing was off. It's just called a different name.

Click to expand...

Sheoul in the Old Testament refers to the grave. It is NOT a place of torment & torture as described in the N.T.

The King James Bible translated Sheoul as Hell, however that was a misleading translation. It wasnt the only place the King James Bible translated the latin to English incorrectly, there were many incorrect translations, some of them quite deliberate! The KJB was also translating from Latin, when the original Gospels were written in Greek, so plenty of room for errors & incorrect translations!

Oscarr said:

With all due respect to our friend, if everything that Jesus said was merely put in his mouth by the gospel writers then we cannot know whether we are genuinely saved, because our eternal future is totally dependent on the words of Jesus to be absolutely true. If we can't depend on what Jesus or Paul said there is no way that we can have any assurance of salvation at all. Therefore our profession of faith would just be empty and of no value.

Click to expand...

I know that you won't agree with this but according to the Jesus Seminar:
Eighty-two % of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.

Of course, that is not definitive, & is only a bunch of scholars opinions. It is impossible to know how accurate a figure of 82% is. It could be 92%, or 52%. However, they are scholars who study the Bible extensively.

I do not base my opinions on the Jesus seminar however, not at all, & I only just found that statistic, so was not aware of it before.

I base my opinions on having a fairly good idea of HOW the Gospels were written, & the literary techniques that were used. I am not interested in church dogma, & believing what the church tells me I should believe. There are plenty of false religions where they claim to know the truth, which includes a good percentage of the Christian churches.

I am interested in finding the truth. Nobody can claim to be 100% certain on anything, however, I am fairly certain that what mainstream churches pass off as gospel truth, is nothing of the sort.

I don't care much for religious organisations who tell me not to search for the truth, or who claim to already know the truth. As Judge Judy often says, if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true. There is too much in the biblical teachings from the Church that doesn't make any sense.

ilovechloe said:

I know that you won't agree with this but according to the Jesus Seminar:
Eighty-two % of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.

Click to expand...

Probably why no serious New Testament scholar takes the “Jesus seminar” seriously. Don’t get me wrong they should as in deem it complete fabrication. What you quoted has no basis in the history of the formation of the NT canon.

That seminar was made up of liberal theologians who created a metric which ignored history especially the Church patristics. Aka the early church fathers.

They also ignored the complete documentary evidence of the NT manuscripts, and chose what was convenient to their “metrics.”


For example, in your cited “82% of the words of Jesus did not say” they used the metric of the saying had to appear in multiple sources. So if Jesus said something in one Gospel and not in another, they discarded that as Jesus even saying it. Same with miracles. They even went further. They asserted the Synoptic Gospels came from the same “Q-source” thus most of the corroboration in Matthew, Mark and Luke are suspect as the same source was used. Not to mention “Q” is a guess or an assumption with no evidence. There is no such thing as “Q.”

So you can see the “Jesus Seminar” is not based on any evidence from the history of the canon or the full documentary physical evidence of the NT manuscripts. The “Jesus Seminar” is what happens when postmodern thinkers get together and form assumptions with a basis on preconceived metrics ignoring actual evidence and facts.

ilovechloe said:

Sheoul in the Old Testament refers to the grave. It is NOT a place of torment & torture as described in the N.T.

The King James Bible translated Sheoul as Hell, however that was a misleading translation. It wasnt the only place the King James Bible translated the latin to English incorrectly, there were many incorrect translations, some of them quite deliberate! The KJB was also translating from Latin, when the original Gospels were written in Greek, so plenty of room for errors & incorrect translations!

Click to expand...

Jesus answers this debate. I understand you are just addressing wave tops of some dusty old refuted assertions and arguments. But “a place” of separation and torment exists no matter what you want to call it. No matter the employment of root word fallacies. There will be a place for God’s people and a place for those who reject Him.

Luke 16: NASB

19“Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20“And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,21and longing to be fed with the crumbswhich were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22“Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23“In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24“And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25“But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.26‘And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27“And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29“But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30“But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31“But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

questionman said:

Some questions about hell.

Is there a hell?
What is the nature of hell?
Is it temporary or eternal?
Is it (painless) annihilation?
Is it (painful) annihilation?
Is it conscious torment?
Is God present or active in it's administration?
Who or what governs hell?
Are there natural laws of hell if God is not present?
Does he administer hell from a distance?
What are the physics of hell?
What are its natural laws?
Is there fire there?
Do people have physical bodies?
What senses are possible? Sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell?
Do people see the fire or smoke?
Do people see other people?
Can people speak? Or scream and wail?
Do people hear other people's screams?
Do people talk?
Is there an intelligible language for people in hell?
Do people remember life on earth?
Can people see heaven or earth?
Is there a surface to hell?
Can people walk?
Is there gravity?
What is the foundation of movement?
Are there angels in hell?
Is there motion?
Is there change?
Is there time?
How big is hell?
Are there three dimensions?
How tall is the space?
Is there an edge to hell?
Can one walk to the edge?
What is beyond the edge?
Are there variations in topography?
Is there water?
Are there plants?
Is there an atmosphere?
Is hell a physical or spiritual place?
Are there atoms, electrons, protons, etc?
What molecules and compounds exist there?
Are there raw materials?
Is the matter of the same nature as ours?
What forces exist in hell?
Is there dark matter or dark energy?
Can people make anything?
Can people do anything?
Can people think?
What is the average temperature of hell? Does it fluctuate?
Do people have lungs?
Do the lungs require oxygen in hell?
Is there oxygen to breathe in hell?
Are there fluctuations of intensity of the fire? Closer to the source it is stronger?
If there is an atmosphere of oxygen, is the entire air under constant and complete combustion?
What is the effect of fire on one's physical body?
How are people's bodies maintained and sustained?
What gives fuel to the fire to burn?
Is hell part of nature?
Is hell another dimension?

Click to expand...

Jesus spoke of hell or whatever you want to call it more than any person in the Bible.

He clearly distinguished a separation of those who were His and those who not His. The ones who enter His rest enter into eternal life, the ones who don’t enter everlasting punishment. Who really cares about if hell has an atmosphere? I can guarantee anyone there will complain about the “weather” there no matter what. All your other questions fall in the same category. Why do you care. “Life” in hell won’t be pleasant nor will the people there. What we are charged with from Christ and implored by the apostles is to preach the gospel and make disciples so people don’t go to hell.

Matthew 25: NASB
31“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.32“All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Jamdoc said:

I was just saying that their statement that Hell is only a new testament thing was off. It's just called a different name.

Click to expand...

I wasn't putting you down at all (just in case you thought I was). I agree with you.

Jamdoc said:

I was just saying that their statement that Hell is only a new testament thing was off. It's just called a different name.

Click to expand...

Very good to recognize this. Even more - keep searching the source of the English name. See how it is different and maybe very important why, from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Green name in the Bible.

ilovechloe said:

I know that you won't agree with this but according to the Jesus Seminar:
Eighty-two % of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him.

Of course, that is not definitive, & is only a bunch of scholars opinions. It is impossible to know how accurate a figure of 82% is. It could be 92%, or 52%. However, they are scholars who study the Bible extensively.

I do not base my opinions on the Jesus seminar however, not at all, & I only just found that statistic, so was not aware of it before.

I base my opinions on having a fairly good idea of HOW the Gospels were written, & the literary techniques that were used. I am not interested in church dogma, & believing what the church tells me I should believe. There are plenty of false religions where they claim to know the truth, which includes a good percentage of the Christian churches.

I am interested in finding the truth. Nobody can claim to be 100% certain on anything, however, I am fairly certain that what mainstream churches pass off as gospel truth, is nothing of the sort.

I don't care much for religious organisations who tell me not to search for the truth, or who claim to already know the truth. As Judge Judy often says, if it doesn't make sense it probably isn't true. There is too much in the biblical teachings from the Church that doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

I understand that, but I cannot see how that with the position you are taking, there can be any assurance of salvation at all. It comes down to just hoping for the best that things will turn out right when we get to eternity. It would make Paul's statement about "full assurance of hope" meaningless.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Very good to recognize this. Even more - keep searching the source of the English name. See how it is different and maybe very important why, from the Hebrew, Aramaic and Green name in the Bible.

Click to expand...

the English word Hell comes from Hel, from Germanic paganism. Kind of like how the Greek bible used Hades for the same concept. When translating into another language it's kind of useful to have a term that already is used to describe something you're talking about, in this case, a bad afterlife. It'd be helpful in talking to people who speak that other language, where using the original Hebrew or Aramaic term for where they're destined to go as sinners when they die wouldn't mean much. It's a place called Sheol, or Gehenna, okay, that doesn't mean much to a Greek or English speaker, who doesn't have those words in their folklore and myths. But you tell a Greek they're going to Hades, they get an idea of what that is. You tell an Englishman they're going to Hel, they have an idea of what that is. Easier to convince them that's where you DON'T want to go.

redleghunter said:

Probably why no serious New Testament scholar takes the “Jesus seminar” seriously. Don’t get me wrong they should as in deem it complete fabrication. What you quoted has no basis in the history of the formation of the NT canon.

That seminar was made up of liberal theologians who created a metric which ignored history especially the Church patristics. Aka the early church fathers.

They also ignored the complete documentary evidence of the NT manuscripts, and chose what was convenient to their “metrics.”

For example, in your cited “82% of the words of Jesus did not say” they used the metric of the saying had to appear in multiple sources. So if Jesus said something in one Gospel and not in another, they discarded that as Jesus even saying it. Same with miracles. They even went further. They asserted the Synoptic Gospels came from the same “Q-source” thus most of the corroboration in Matthew, Mark and Luke are suspect as the same source was used. Not to mention “Q” is a guess or an assumption with no evidence. There is no such thing as “Q.”

So you can see the “Jesus Seminar” is not based on any evidence from the history of the canon or the full documentary physical evidence of the NT manuscripts. The “Jesus Seminar” is what happens when postmodern thinkers get together and form assumptions with a basis on preconceived metrics ignoring actual evidence and facts.

Click to expand...

I never said that I agree with the 82% figure in the seminar. You certainly can't put a percentage on it & expect it to be accurate, as with something like this it is going to be really subjective, & have a wide margin of error. I also dont base any of my opinions from the 'Jesus' seminar. I only posted it as a matter of interest.

However, there is definitely something up when the Jesus of Mark is totally different to the Jesus of John. How can 2 supposedly eyewitness accounts see Jesus so differently, & hear Jesus saying totally different things?

So who is the REAL Jesus, the Jesus of Mark, or the Jesus of John, or maybe you think he is both!

If the Jesus in both Gospels is so different, how can the accounts be relied upon to be accurate?

Which early church fathers are you referring to? The ones who never met Jesus, & got most of their information from the Gospels or writings of Paul? Since they are 'church fathers' they are hardly going to be unbiased witnesses, just as you will never meet an unbiased Christian apologetic, who also claims to know much more than he really does.

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.''

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Of the Bible's 1700 references to the soul and the spirit, neither the soul or spirit is ever declared to be immortal or eternal. In fact, 1 Timothy tells us that only God is immortal. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul is full of false hope and negates the message of death. If humans continue to live—albeit in an altered state—then there is no need for the atoning death of Christ. Christ died to restore life to those who had forfeited it through sin.


A Biblical Understanding of Death | Immortality or Unconsciousness

ilovechloe said:

However, there is definitely something up when the Jesus of Mark is totally different to the Jesus of John. How can 2 supposedly eyewitness accounts see Jesus so differently, & hear Jesus saying totally different things?

So who is the REAL Jesus, the Jesus of Mark, or the Jesus of John, or maybe you think he is both!

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could explain the discrepancies which vex you. We can discuss.

ilovechloe said:

Which early church fathers are you referring to? The ones who never met Jesus, & got most of their information from the Gospels or writings of Paul? Since they are 'church fathers' they are hardly going to be unbiased witnesses, just as you will never meet an unbiased Christian apologetic, who also claims to know much more than he really does.

Click to expand...

All of them. As early as the second century they were quoting the NT books.

You can examine here:

Early Christian NT References

When you say “unbiased” what do you mean? That we should be looking for some independent sources outside the church to help us determine the canon?

redleghunter said:

Perhaps you could explain the discrepancies which vex you. We can discuss.

All of them. As early as the second century they were quoting the NT books.

You can examine here:

Early Christian NT References

When you say “unbiased” what do you mean? That we should be looking for some independent sources outside the church to help us determine the canon?

Click to expand...

I am not going to go into all the differences between Mark & John, as I don't have time. All you have to do is read them side by side.

In Mark, Jesus keeps telling those he heals not to tell anybody, & his disciples don't understand who he is. He wants to keep his identity a secret. In Mark, the clearing of the temple occurs at the end of his ministry.

By the time we get to the Gospel of John, Jesus is boldly telling people he is the son of God, & the clearing of the temple begins at the beginning of his ministry.

It is not just discrepancies in events, of which there are many, however, the character of Jesus is totally different in both Gospels. There are too many discrepancies that cannot be reconciled by a 'difference in viewpoint', & how did the witnesses in Mark, totally miss so many of the things that Jesus is reported to have said in John?

And as the early Church fathers never met or knew or witnessed Jesus, how can any of them be relied on to know what Jesus actually said. They are just quoting hearsay.

When the early Church fathers put together the Cannon, there was no such thing as the printing press, & the majority of the population was illiterate & could not read. I also suspect that those writing the Gospels never expected that THEIR gospel, would end up in a single book with other Gospels. I suspect that Mathew thought that his Gospel would replace the Gospel of Mark, & Luke thought that his Gospel being superior to Mark & Mathew (in Lukes mind), would eventually replace those 2 gospels.

So very few, if any Christians would ever have noticed the discrepancies between the Gospels, since they were just being read verses from them, & they never would have heard all Gospels side by side. Even today, most Christians never notice any discrepancies, because most never ever bother to read all the Gospels, & just read several verses from this one, & several verses from that one.

I think it is too far a stretch to believe that we can EVER accurately know what Jesus said about hell, or if he even said anything about it at all, from the 4 Gospels, as they are neither historical or strictly factual.

ilovechloe said:

So very few, if any Christians would ever have noticed the discrepancies between the Gospels, since they were just being read verses from them, & they never would have heard all Gospels side by side. Even today, most Christians never notice any discrepancies, because most never ever bother to read all the Gospels, & just read several verses from this one, & several verses from that one.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it’s because there are valid harmonies.

The Synoptic Gospels cover mainly the Galilean ministry. John the Judaea ministry.