David Bentley Hart on Hell

[Clare73]

What does Psalms 44:19 have to do with Isaiah 66:24/Mark 9:48? I can't find any source linking them together like you're doing.

It was the Jewish teaching of the Talmud, which Jesus confirmed in Mark 9:48.

"But You have severely broken us in the place of jackals,
And covered us with the shadow of death." Psalms 44:19

That would make it a man-made understanding of "blind guides" who defected from scripture.

"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written." Romans 2:24

Actually the mention of corpses and worms is a point of contention, because they are both symbolic of being dead rather than conscious existence. "and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Flesh indicates an Earthly state.

Points "of contention" regarding the explicit words of a text are nothing more than unbelief of the text, and are without merit to me.
They'll have to have Biblical support from correctly dividing the word of God to merit my consideration of them.

"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh." Isaiah 66:24
"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire" Mark 9:48-49
This isn't as clear and precise as you want it to be. It's actually cryptic. Jesus was often purposely cryptic rather than precise, which is why He spoke in parables.

It's meaning is found in the Talmud, and which Jesus confirmed in Mark 9:48.

 

[Clare73]

Is Jerusalem still burning today?

Is Jerusalem somewhere stated to be an unquenchable fire?

No. Unquenchable fire simply means "man" cannot put it out until it has served it's purpose. What does a fire do? It consumes. Both death and hell are destroyed in the lake of fire.

You've added to the text: actually, they were thrown into the lake of fire.

This is biblical. God's not willing that anyone would even perish

God is not willing that "any" of those to whom the letter was addressed (the elect) should perish by Jesus' second coming occurring before they have come to faith.

yet you think he will burn people for an eternity. Putting both of those statements together makes no sense.

According to your understanding of them, they are contradictory.
According to my understanding of them, they are in accord.
And since Scripture does not contradict itself, my understanding enjoys Biblical support which yours does not.

This "man's doctrine" is one of the worst doctrines that have continued to drive people away from a loving God.

With all due respect, the "man's doctrine" is yours, mine enjoys Biblical support.

Do you really believe that someone who dies not being a Christian will burn for an eternity? For example, someone like Anne Frank? If you do, no offense but I feel as if you don't know God at all. The God of the Bible I know wouldn't.

That's on Anne Frank.
Did she want Jesus' salvation from eternal damnation?
Did she believe what he said about it?
Did she go to him for it, or did she actively reject him and it?
The answer to all of the above is on Anne Frank.

So as always, it boils down to belief.

So do you believe Jesus:
"Whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemned already (in Anne Frank's case, by the law--Galatians 3:10-13) because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18)

 

[Clare73]

Do worms have everlasting life?

I give up. . .do they?

What saith the Scripture?

 

[Clare73]

It seems that those who pray for revival fire are praying down the "hellfire" on themselves unwittingly.

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

In the suffering of dealing radically with their sin (cut it off, pluck it out) to avoid the fire of Gehenna (Mark 9:43-48).

Malachi 3:2
But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap.

Only those in Christ will be able to stand.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I give up. . .do they?

The Bible says they dieth not.

 

[Der Alte]

Do worms have everlasting life?

If God wants some worms to live forever don't you think He can make that happen?

 

[Der Alte]

He will indeed. He will ignite the fire of passion for Him in the souls of those who were once His enemies, once His righteous deeds are revealed. For His ministers are flames of fire, and His servants will serve Him.

Amazing, pieces of at least three, maybe four, verses jammed together to make the Bible say what you want it to, to support your assumptions/presuppositions.
By doing that anybody can make the Bible say almost anything.

 

[Clare73]

If God wants some worms to live forever don't you think He can make that happen?

Our dialogue has reached the elevation of worms. . .

 

[Clare73]

Amazing, pieces of at least three, maybe four, verses jammed together to make the Bible what you want it to say to support your assumptions/presuppositions.
By doing that anybody can make the Bible say almost anything.

My sentiments, exactly. . .it's always stunning to see such mishandling of the word of God.
That kind of stringing unrelated Biblical concepts together, based on having a word or phrase in common, for the purpose of creating or supporting a false doctrine doth betray one's denomination.

 

[Der Alte]

Our dialogue has reached the elevation of worms. . .

 

[Clare73]

Just funning. . .

 

[Ceallaigh]

Amazing, pieces of at least three, maybe four, verses jammed together to make the Bible say what you want it to, to support your assumptions/presuppositions.
By doing that anybody can make the Bible say almost anything.

Does that mean I should question what he posted about a talking donkey who stole serpent's birthright to get a multicolored coat?

 

[Ceallaigh]

My sentiments, exactly. . .it's always stunning to see such mishandling of the word of God.
That kind of stringing unrelated Biblical concepts together, based on having a word or phrase in common, for the purpose of creating or supporting a false doctrine doth betray one's denomination.

Is it really any different than saying 'it's better to pluck out sin than be cast into the lake of fire where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth day and night?' I bet if he had wrote that there wouldn't have been a complaint.

 

[Der Alte]

Does that mean I should question what he posted about a talking donkey who stole serpent's birthright to get a multicolored coat?

Don't forget the talking ghosts and the crying rocks.

 

[Ceallaigh]

It was the Jewish teaching of the Talmud, which Jesus confirmed in Mark 9:48.
Points "of contention" regarding the explicit words of a text are nothing more than unbelief of the text, and are without merit to me.
They'll have to have Biblical support from correctly dividing the word of God to merit my consideration of them.
It's meaning is found in the Talmud, and which Jesus confirmed in Mark 9:48.

The Talmud is not an acceptable source for interpreting what Jesus said/meant. Have you read what the Talmud says about Jesus? Are you going to use the Quran as your next source?

 

[Clare73]

Is it really any different than saying 'it's better to pluck out sin than be cast into the lake of fire where there's weeping and gnashing of teeth day and night?'

Indeed it is. . .when "salt" is used the same way in both, as sanctification, through retarding of corruption (sin).

Col. 4:6 - "Let your conversation be always full of grace (no corruption), seasoned with salt (which retards corruption)."

Mt 5:13 - "You are the salt of the earth (retarding pace of mankind's corruption). But if salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

If the professing church (salt) losses its saltiness (sanctification/holiness), it will no longer be good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled on by the world.

Mk 9:50 - ". . .Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."

Grace retards our corruptions (the source of our conflicts--James 4:1) and makes us peaceable.

Mk 9:49 - "Everyone one will be salted (sanctified) with fire (of refining).

In the suffering of dealing radically with their sin (cut it off, pluck it out) to avoid the fire of Gehenna (Mark 9:43-48).

I bet if he had wrote that there wouldn't have been a complaint.

If he can show "fire" is used the same way in Mark 9:48 as it is in his string of consciousness, you're right, there would be no complaint.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Points "of contention" regarding the explicit words of a text are nothing more than unbelief of the text, and are without merit to me.

If you equate a difference of opinion regarding interpretation with unbelief, there's no point in discussing the Bible with you.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Indeed it is. . .when "salt" is used the same way in both, as sanctification, through retarding of corruption (sin).

Col. 4:6 - "Let your conversation be always full of grace (no corruption), seasoned with salt (which retards corruption)."

Mt 5:13 - "You are the salt of the earth (retarding pace of mankind's corruption). But if salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men."

If the professing church (salt) losses its saltiness (sanctification/holiness), it will no longer be good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled on by the world.

Mk 9:50 - ". . .Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."

Grace retards our corruptions (the source of our conflicts--James 4:1) and makes us peaceable.

Mk 9:49 - "Everyone one will be salted (sanctified) with fire (of refining).

In the suffering of dealing radically with their sin (cut it off, pluck it out) to avoid the fire of Gehenna (Mark 9:43-48).
If he can show "fire" is used the same way in Mark 9:48 as it is in his string of consciousness, you're right, there would be no complaint.

I hope you didn't spend a lot of time on that, because it was a rhetorical question.

 

[Clare73]

The Talmud is not an acceptable source for interpreting what Jesus said/meant.

Sez who?

It is when it reports the accepted Jewish teaching on eternal punishment in Hades of Sheol, which in addition to Jesus confirming in Mark 9:48, he also confirms in his parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Sheol in Luke 16:19-31, which parable would be meaningless for teaching spiritual truth if it were a myth.

 

[Clare73]

Points "of contention," regarding the explicit words of a text are nothing more than unbelief of the text, and are without merit to me.

If you equate a difference of opinion regarding interpretation with unbelief, there's no point in discussing the Bible with you.

I most definitely equate contention with simple, clear and plain texts of the God-breathed Scriptures as unbelief, and particularly when they are supported by other similar simple, clear and plain texts from the God-breathed Scriptures, no interpretation required.

"Thou shalt not murder" is not subject to "interpretation."