Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Hillsage]

Please understand that its commonly not a matter of the non-Universalist defending hell, having malice, or setting themselves up as judge.

Many non-Universalists, like myself, are not damning anyone - we see that judgement is left to the Lord. Many non-Universalists see 2 Timothy 1 saying that God desires all to be saved. Unfortunately based on our interpretation of scripture, we don't see that happening.

Please base what you believe in YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION of SCRIPTURE. I only ask for that one because I have a hard-book copy, as well as one in my purchased bible software program. Then maybe we might have a more educated and thought provocing discussion from both sides. BTW, YLT isn't the only bible translation, out there that eliminates the word HELL totally from "SCRIPTURE".

Below I list 25 different SCRIPTURE translations do not have the word HELL in them?

Wesley’s New Testament (1755) 0 0
Scarlett’s N.T. (1798) 0 0
The New Testament in Greek and English (Kneeland, 1823) 0 0
Young’s Literal Translation (1891) 0 0
Twentieth Century New Testament (1900) 0 0
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible (reprinted, 1902)
Fenton’s Holy Bible in Modern English (1903)
Weymouth’s New Testament in Modern Speech (1903)
Jewish Publication Society Bible Old Testament (1917)
Panin’s Numeric English New Testament (1914)
The People’s New Covenant (Overbury, 1925)
Hanson’s New Covenant (1884)
Western N.T. (1926)
NT of our Lord and Savior Anointed (Tomanek, 1958)
Concordant Literal NT (1983)
The N.T., A Translation (Clementson, 1938)
Emphatic Diaglott, Greek/English Interlinear (Wilson,
1942)
New American Bible (1970)
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976)
Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, Old Testament (1985)
The New Testament, A New Translation (Greber, 1980)
Christian Bible (1991)
World English Bible (in progress)
Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1975)**
Int. NASB-NIV Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1993)**

Just start with a couple of verses to get the ball rolling GENTLY,

 

[Gundy22]

Mat 25:41

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Well the Bible says the hell-fire is "prepared for" - and many take that to mean created for.

 

[hedrick]

Please base what you believe in YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION of SCRIPTURE. I only ask for that one because I have a hard-book copy, as well as one in my purchased bible software program. Then maybe we might have a more educated and thought provocing discussion from both sides. BTW, YLT isn't the only bible translation, out there that eliminates the word HELL totally from "SCRIPTURE".

Below I list 25 different SCRIPTURE translations do not have the word HELL in them?

Wesley’s New Testament (1755) 0 0
Scarlett’s N.T. (1798) 0 0
The New Testament in Greek and English (Kneeland, 1823) 0 0
Young’s Literal Translation (1891) 0 0
Twentieth Century New Testament (1900) 0 0
Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible (reprinted, 1902)
Fenton’s Holy Bible in Modern English (1903)
Weymouth’s New Testament in Modern Speech (1903)
Jewish Publication Society Bible Old Testament (1917)
Panin’s Numeric English New Testament (1914)
The People’s New Covenant (Overbury, 1925)
Hanson’s New Covenant (1884)
Western N.T. (1926)
NT of our Lord and Savior Anointed (Tomanek, 1958)
Concordant Literal NT (1983)
The N.T., A Translation (Clementson, 1938)
Emphatic Diaglott, Greek/English Interlinear (Wilson,
1942)
New American Bible (1970)
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible (1976)
Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, Old Testament (1985)
The New Testament, A New Translation (Greber, 1980)
Christian Bible (1991)
World English Bible (in progress)
Zondervan Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1975)**
Int. NASB-NIV Parallel N.T. in Greek and English (1993)**

Just start with a couple of verses to get the ball rolling GENTLY,

Translating hell has been an issue because there are three different Greek words with slightly different meaning: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus. Translations vary in how they handle them. I believe KJV translates them all as hell. NRSV translates Gehenna and Tartarus as hell, and leaves Hades as Hades.

The OT uses other terms. Again, how to translate them is a question. Sheol isn't really hell in our sense, as it is neutral (i.e. not punitive) but KJV often translates it as such.

Here's a summary: https://wrongabouthell.com/Words Translated As Hell.pdf

Translating it differently doesn't necessarily imply a difference in theology, but it might tend to lead to difference ideas.

 

[Hillsage]

Translating hell has been an issue because there are three different Greek words with slightly different meaning: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus. Translations vary in how they handle them. I believe KJV translates them all as hell. NRSV translates Gehenna and Tartarus as hell, and leaves Hades as Hades.

The OT uses other terms. Again, how to translate them is a question. Sheol isn't really hell in our sense, as it is neutral (i.e. not punitive) but KJV often translates it as such.

Here's a summary: https://wrongabouthell.com/Words Translated As Hell.pdf

Translating it differently doesn't necessarily imply a difference in theology, but it might tend to lead to difference ideas.

Thank you Hedrick for your URL.
Starting with your URL reference, does anyone have any issues? My first comment would be on HADES being translated as GRAVE 1 time out of 12 verses. That strikes me as a big red flag.

hades is in the KJV NT.........11 times. 10 times it is HELL and 1 time it is GRAVE.
The first word "death" in translations below is thanatos in the Greek, and every translation translates the same thing.

KJV 1CO 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave , where is thy victory?
RSV 1CO 15:55 "O death, where is thy victory? O death , where is thy sting?"
NAS 1CO 15:55 "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH WHERE IS YOUR STING?"
NIV 1CO 15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
YLT 1CO 15:55 where, O Death, thy sting? where, O Hades, thy victory?'

Strons Ref # 2288 thanatos (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively)

So, here we have RSV, NAS, NIV translations all saying hades is "death".
KJV saying "grave"
YLT saying "hades"

The three most modern translations are deceptive IMO. They make no distinction between the two 'death's in the verse. That leads to a novice thinker believing they are the same Greek words IMO.

The next two verses show that even CHRISTIAN'S experience the STING of death because we sin just like unbelievers.

1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

but what victory does the GRAVE HADES HELL over believers or unbelievers? NONE. Both are resurrected. The punishment of damnation is not the opposite of "life". "DEATH" would be the opposite. And "damnation" is the Greek word Krisis which means "a decision" period.

JOH 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation/a decision.

DOES anyone see ETERNAL HELL in any of these verses using HADES? Or is a GRAVE acceptable?

 

[ozso]

Thank you Hedrick for your URL.
Starting with your URL reference, does anyone have any issues? My first comment would be on HADES being translated as GRAVE 1 time out of 12 verses. That strikes me as a big red flag.

hades is in the KJV NT.........11 times. 10 times it is HELL and 1 time it is GRAVE.
The first word "death" in translations below is thanatos in the Greek, and every translation translates the same thing.

KJV 1CO 15:55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave , where is thy victory?
RSV 1CO 15:55 "O death, where is thy victory? O death , where is thy sting?"
NAS 1CO 15:55 "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY? O DEATH WHERE IS YOUR STING?"
NIV 1CO 15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"
YLT 1CO 15:55 where, O Death, thy sting? where, O Hades, thy victory?'

Strons Ref # 2288 thanatos (properly an adjective used as a noun) death (literally or figuratively)

So, here we have RSV, NAS, NIV translations all saying hades is "death".
KJV saying "grave"
YLT saying "hades"

The three most modern translations are deceptive IMO. They make no distinction between the two 'death's in the verse. That leads to a novice thinker believing they are the same Greek words IMO.

The next two verses show that even CHRISTIAN'S experience the STING of death because we sin just like unbelievers.

1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

but what victory does the GRAVE HADES HELL over believers or unbelievers? NONE. Both are resurrected. The punishment of damnation is not the opposite of "life". "DEATH" would be the opposite. And "damnation" is the Greek word Krisis which means "a decision" period.

JOH 5:28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation/a decision.

DOES anyone see ETERNAL HELL in any of these verses using HADES? Or is a GRAVE acceptable?

Here's my version from a while back

"Hades" appears 11 times in the NT. The Aramaic Bible in Plain English translates them all as "Sheol".

I find it unlikely that when Jesus was speaking he suddenly went from Aramaic to Greek and said "Hades" instead of "Sheol" in Matthew 11:23, Matthew 16:18, Luke 10:15 and Luke 16:23.

"Hades" appears twice in Acts of the Apostles 2:27 and Acts of the Apostles 2:31, but that's Peter quoting Psalms 16:8-11 so that's definitely "Sheol".

"Hades" appears in 1 Corinthians 15:55 but many translations say "death". The KJB says "grave".

"Hades" appears in Revelation 1:18, Revelation 6:8 and Revelation 20:13-14. And in all of those it appears alongside "death" so it seems likely those should all be "Sheol" as well.

Therefore I'm going to conclude that neither "Hell" nor "Hades" belongs anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Mat 25:41

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Well the Bible says the hell-fire is "prepared for" - and many take that to mean created for.

The Bible, unlike Mary K. Baxter, does not describe "hell." The Lake of Fire is not ID'd in the Bible as "hell." The Bible fails to use the term "hell-fire." All instances of supernatural fire in the Bible are instances of Godfire, because God is a refiner of men. He burns away the dross of the ore of ordinary men to produce the silver and gold. Did you not read my long post titled "Godfire"?

 

[ozso]

THis is one of the lines separating the historic "universalism" such as what was taught by Gregory of Nyssa where the proponents maintained that damnation was Biblically evident for those who in their free will reject Christ but there is a hope that all will be redeemed(I call this conditional universalism) willingly from modern universalism where it is explicitly taught that all will eventually be redeemed and God's glory is dependent upon the human response. These are two different beasts, and the latter was explicitly anathematized at 2nd Constantinople.

That's why I think maybe there's more of a middle ground. It seems like for the most part the view is either one extreme or the other. Either A: 100% go to heaven or B: 1% go to heaven, and 99% go to a place of eternal torment. I think there's a sufficient amount of scripture to conclude that B seems unlikely for those who feel lead to see it as such. But in my opinion that doesn't automatically mean all that's left is A. I'm willing to settle for the idea that many or perhaps even most who aren't/weren't disciples of Christ will be saved. And also that those who are aren't saved won't end up in an furnace screaming in pain for all eternity. But I also know that I'm a pea-brained human trying to prognosticate what God's ultimate plan is regarding all of mankind.

 

[John Mullally]

Most of them see us as a noisome pestilence that needs to be eradicated from the face of the earth. We are criticized for peddling a dangerous heresy that is sending people to hell.

Good point. I remember it was a scandal when Charismatic/WOF Carlton Pearson (although not mentioned at church) transitioned to Universalist.

Our mega-church pastors commonly speak about other ministries they are partnering with & only speak about adversarial Christian sects in answer to attacks. Although there is no heresy checklist (I presume it is because they are secure enough not to lash out in the flesh), there are mid-week new believer classes among a number of other classes. In the long term Universalists would not feel more comfortable because about once a month at the tail-end of the Sunday morning service there is talk about where you will spend eternity with an accompanying altar call.

 

[John Mullally]

.

 

[Andrewn]

The first time Shrewd Manager called me a "Son of Hell" I told him that it was not cute. He doubled down calling it biblical and I addressed him again on that account as it was not biblical - to no avail. God Bless you.

I did not call you or call anyone else "Son of Hell." But I apologize to you on behalf of the person who did.

There has been a bug introduced in this thread of people flaunting their resumes, even though others with greater resumes have not done this. But putting people down and flaunting resumes is not appealing from a follower of Christ:

Mat 23:12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

 

[ozso]

I'll be perfectly honest and say that when I see an anonymous person flaunting their resume, I'm suspicious of them being a poser. The more they go on about it, the more artificial it appears to me. And I doubt I'm the only one.

Side note: I have a PhD in everything.

 

[Andrewn]

Translating hell has been an issue because there are three different Greek words with slightly different meaning: Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus. Translations vary in how they handle them. I believe KJV translates them all as hell. NRSV translates Gehenna and Tartarus as hell, and leaves Hades as Hades.

In Greek mythology, Tartarus was place in Hades reserved for evil people, a place filled with punishments and suffering. Saint Thomas Aquinas considered this place to be the same as NT Gehenna and this identification was accepted by both Catholics and Protestants. NRSV translates Gehenna and Tartarus as Hell probably because it considers them to be the same place.

EO would disagree that Tartarus and Gehenna are the same preferring to identify Gehenna with Revelation's Lake of Fire. Note that Gehenna is described as a place of never-quenched fire and undying worms. Tartarus, OTOH, is a dark, gloomy place with chains. Not necessarily the same thing. Also, Gehenna is a place of punishment of both soul and body.

 

[ozso]

In Greek mythology, Tartarus was place in Hades reserved for evil people, a place filled with punishments and suffering. Saint Thomas Aquinas considered this place to be the same as NT Gehenna and this identification was accepted by both Catholics and Protestants. NRSV translates Gehenna and Tartarus as Hell probably because it considers them to be the same place.

EO would disagree that Tartarus and Gehenna are the same preferring to identify Gehenna with Revelation's Lake of Fire. Note that Gehenna is described as a place of never-quenched fire and undying worms. Tartarus, OTOH, is a dark, gloomy place with chains. Not necessarily the same thing.

Until I find out differently I'm going with Gehenna being an earthly location known as the Valley of Hinnom where children were sacriced by fire. It's place with a horrific history like Auschwitz.

 

[Andrewn]

Until I find out differently I'm going with Gehenna being an earthly location known as the Valley of Hinnom where children were sacriced by fire. It's place with a horrific history like Auschwitz.

This is a 3rd possibility for Gehenna. I need to reread Matthew to see how much it may fit. My impression is that that understanding would make most of the Lord's teaching intended only for his audience and not for us. But I have to read matthew again.

 

[ozso]

This is a 3rd possibility for Gehenna. I need to reread Matthew to see how much it may fit. My impression is that that understanding would make most of the Lord's teaching intended only for his audience and not for us. But I have to read matthew again.

I tend to lean towards the idea that Jesus is taking about the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem, using apocalyptic language like the OT prophets did regarding Jerusalem being destroyed by Babylon. Go back to Isaiah where he says "Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched" and see what's being talked about there. It seems reasonable to speculate that Jesus was taking about whatever Isaiah was talking about.

 

[Saint Steven]

DOES anyone see ETERNAL HELL in any of these verses using HADES? Or is a GRAVE acceptable?

Here's an observation I would appreciate your commentary on.

There's a BIG difference between "a grave" and "THE grave". The term "a grave" being a hole in the ground, and the term "THE grave" referring to Hades.

The creed speaks of Jesus being raised from THE grave, not a grave. Besides, he was laid in an ABOVE ground tomb, his "burial" was not in the ground.

 

[Saint Steven]

In the long term Universalists would feel more comfortable because about once a month at the tail-end of the Sunday morning service there is talk about where you will spend eternity with an accompanying altar call.

There it is.
I'm not sure how a person's eternal destiny is presented in that talk. You'll have to inform me. But hell (ECT) is certainly inferred whether mentioned or not. Obviously, hell fire and brimstone preaching is the worst form of this. But here's the point...

Is an altar call decision made on the basis of fear a genuine conversion? Or is it more like a confession extracted under threat? (an offer you can't refuse - gangster style)

I guess the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. It seems to me the churches are at least half full of folks that made a fear-based decision and are only there because of the fear of the consequences of not being there. So they polish a pew with their backside at least once a month and begrudgingly cough up a tithe so as not to be guilty of robbing God. (another bogus fear-induced requirement)

Does any of this ring true for you? Is this a fair observation?

 

[Saint Steven]

Therefore I'm going to conclude that neither "Hell" nor "Hades" belongs anywhere in the Bible.

What about a reference to "the realm of the dead" (Hades) in the NT that is not an OT quote? Shouldn't the Greek term be used in that case?

 

[Andrewn]

Go back to Isaiah where he says "Their worm does not die And the fire is not quenched" and see what's being talked about there. It seems reasonable to speculate that Jesus was taking about whatever Isaiah was talking about.

Yes, it seems reasonable to speculate that Jesus was taking about whatever Isaiah was talking about in Isa 66:18-24. Here is my summary of that passage:

The passage starts with the Lord saying, "I'm coming to gather the nations of every language." So, we need to keep in our mind the purpose of the lord: gathering the nations, not destroying Judea. He will conquer the nations. The rebellious, their corpuses will be thrown into fire and worms. The survivors, OTOH, will take their gifts to Jerusalem as if they were of Israel. They will become Priests and Levites. The Lord will make a new heaven and a new earth and all mankind will come to bow in front of Him.

This entire passage is clearly about the coming of Christ. The punishment in Gehenna must be understood figuratively. One cannot seriously make the passage apply to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD without quite a bit of mental gymnastics. This is how I read the passage and the commentaries.

 

[Andrewn]

Therefore I'm going to conclude that neither "Hell" nor "Hades" belongs anywhere in the Bible.

The word "Hell" is English translation and to conclude that it doesn't belong in the Bible is straightforward.

But the word "Hades" is Greek and is written in the original NT manuscripts. I understand that you would rather see it replaced with the Hebrew term "Sheol." This is what some Messianic Jewish English translations do and it may be a good idea.

In Greek mythology, Hades consists of 3 section. The description of Sheol, OTOH, represents only the central / main compartment of Hades. To render Hades into Sheol would be a movement from the general to the specific. And quite likely, Sheol was specifically intended when Hades was used.