Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[Saint Steven]

You apparently misunderstand me. My argument is not that Jesus did not go to the realm of the dead, (in fact, I believe he did), but rather against the notion that his preaching to souls there was for the purpose or effective in saving some who there had died in their sins.

What was the point then?
Are you saying Jesus went all the way to the realm of the dead to "preach to the choir"?

 

[sawdust]

What was the point then?

To remove the believing souls who had been held captive there while waiting for the Christ to complete His mission.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I am curious of any doctrines about divine punishment, specifically as related to the afterlife, but in general, too.

I'll throw out a couple.

Anselm: Anselm argues the sin is not only disobedience, but it also dishonors God. Sin, therefore, incurs a double debt (disobedience and dishonor) that one must repay or for which one must be punished. He explains why punishment is needed. Punishment subjects the human creature, thereby putting them back in their place, which restores God's honor. So, punishment restores God's honor.

Calvin: Calvin, ever the lawyer, said sin makes us criminals, essentially. Criminals must be punished. Sin incurs divine wrath, therefore, God must punish us. Of course, God punishes Jesus in our place so we don't have to be punished. He, too, will talk about punishment putting us back in our proper place.

Is that what divine punishment does? Is it a release valve for divine wrath? Does punishment restore God's honor? Are there any better ideas out there of what punishment is or does? Is divine punishment necessary? If so, why?

(The poll specifically concerns unrepentant sin at death so we can avoid wasting time getting to the point)

I’m under the impression that Christ paid for the sins of the world and He will choose who will enter heaven and who will not. I don’t believe that sin is the determining factor for salvation but instead the state of our hearts intent. If our heart desires to love and serve God tho we may still sin from time to time we will still be saved and no further punishment or payment is due for our sins because they have been paid in full.

 

[Hmm]

Reformed, Lutherans, and Methodists do _not_ believe in Harrowing of Hell.

Slight tremor there.

And, of course, Evangelicals do not

That gave me a nasty knock.

Wikipedia is wrong

I passed out.

 

[Saint Steven]

To remove the believing souls who had been held captive there while waiting for the Christ to complete His mission.

That's the standard answer that works with Damnationism. But we are told who he made proclamation to. The disobedient that died in the flood.

1 Peter 3:18-20
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

 

[Mark Quayle]

This is standard doctrine in the larger church. I'm not making this stuff up.

Ephesians 4:8-9
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?

Ok, I'll accept that it is standard doctrine in the larger church. Apparently I have not been as much a part of the larger church during the last 66 years as I thought.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What I am sharing about the Harrowing of Hell is older than the creeds. I'm not making this stuff up.

Ok. I'll take your word for it. But 'older than' doesn't mean 'mainline'. At least, not quite what I would call Reformed or Calvinist. I haven't even heard of this before as anyone taking it seriously, except here on this forum.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree that the context of the each parable is very important. There is often hyperbole but they are not sci-fi. Details are coming from the same source, the One who is in the bosom of the Father and who knows everything.

That is hardly to my point, but I'll accept that you say this
to lead up to what you say later.

This is neither the context of the parable nor what we see taking place in the parable. Luke 16 started with the parable of the Shrewd Manager. In this we see a "rich man" dealing with his manager. Perhaps it was the same "rich man" mentioned in the following parable, quite likely a metaphor for Jewish leaders, with whom the Lord had much conflict.

Are you denying that it is Jesus point, that the whole story leads up to?

The rich man died and went to Hades. There, his soul was quite conscious of his torment. He was able to communicate with the other side of Hades, and to see the poor Lazarus, whom he had ignored, enjoying blessings in Abraham's bosom. You said the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But in the story we read the opposite. We see that the rich man was beginning to repent in Hades. He regretted what he had done and called on to Abraham. He was finally willing to invite Lazarus to his presence.

This sounds like truth, not sci-fi. Abraham told the rich man that Lazarus could not help him. He also told the rich man that his brothers would not believe, even if a person was resurrected from the dead. Apparently predicting what is to happen after Jesus' resurrection.

The rich man was beginning to repent, but we are not told what happened next. Our curiosity is not satisfied. The moral of the parable is that those of us who have the means and the power must attend to the needy. And that we must believe in the resurrected One.

I doubt very much that all this was a hypothetical story. The word "Hades" is mentioned 11 times in the NT. The equivalent "Sheol" is mentioned a lot in the OT. I understand that believers in post-mortem unconsciousness or immediate resurrection see all these as references to "the grave." But is this warranted?

I'm not denying there was/is a place called Hades, nor Sheol, nor The Grave, nor bowels of the earth nor any other of that sort. I'm saying that the parable is just a story, and no, not scifi, and not introducing new concepts, unless as helpful in producing the twist at the end that the listeners were not expecting.

The deeds, attitudes, feelings may be legitimate, but they are not the point, or at least not the main point, and MUST be backed up by other Scripture before you can say that Christ meant to tell the story with those details meant for doctrine.

Naturally, I can be wrong, and often am —certainly my thoughts, and specially my descriptions, fall short of the complete range of facts— and God can change what I think any time he pleases, but so far I see no reason to think this is the way The Realm of the Dead, and The Bosom of Abraham, and the logistics of things after death, etc etc are like, other than to note that some times the Old Jewish thinking was right. To me, it is dangerous to build doctrine on such details of a parable.

 

[Mark Quayle]

What was the point then?
Are you saying Jesus went all the way to the realm of the dead to "preach to the choir"?

No. I think he went and preached to those who had died. I don't know how many of which were saved or not. I can only speculate as to what his purpose was for doing so. And I believe his preaching had precisely the effect he intended, (though I don't know what that effect was), since, (my paraphrase) 'his word will not return to him void, but will accomplish that for which he sent it' —it always does.

Also, I have no reason to think that this "preaching" was what our imagination produces at the sound of the words.

 

[RileyG]

To whom and to what are you responding here, it is not identifiable here.

IOW, God does not punish people, people essentially punish themselves. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[Clare73]

I just answered these two, plus 3 more like them, in another post somewhere. I'll look.

Ah, here. From post 322 in answer to 318:

I said, "I don't see any of these as evidence that they are 'released' from Hades, and certainly not that they are converted, released from sin, forgiven, during their 'stay' in the grave.

1Pe 3:19-20 says that Christ preached to the imprisoned spirits from Noah's day. Where does that mean they were "released from Hades"?

1Pe 4:6 says that the Gospel has been preached to those who are dead (notice the time difference there?) There is no reference to where they were when preached to, nor even if they were alive at the time, but only that they are expired. Nor is there any mention of anyone being "released from Hades." Note here also, that it references the Gospel being preached, which to me necessarily implies during this temporal frame, though it does not necessarily imply it could not happen in Hades.

Rom 10:6-8 only rhetorically references Christ being brought up from the grave, with no reference at all to those who died in their sin being "released from Hades"

Ephesians 4:8-9 Says Christ took captives, and that he gave gifts to his people, and that
he descended to the lower, earthly regions (which I take to mean, Hades). I agree that he descended (and resurrected from) Hades, because the prophecy (Psalm 16:10 reads, "because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead".

Would you examine that one again for me.

Although Paul is quoting from Psalms 68:18 to bring in the idea of the "gifts to men" in v. 11, he seems to interject a reminder here to his readers of Christ's coming to earth (incarnation in the lower earthly regions) and his following resurrection and ascension; i.e., "ascended" on high leading captivity (Satan and sin) captive, before treating of God's gifts to men.

What think ye?

Rev 1:18 only reference to hell and death is that he was dead and is alive, and possesses the keys of hell and death. No reference to anyone being "released from Hades".

The closest reference among them to anyone being "released" is the fact that he has the keys. Yet the only time we see them being possibly 'released' is elsewhere talked about, when the sea, and the grave and death 'give up' the dead that are in them, to be judged according to their deeds, as sounds somewhat like 1 Peter 4:6, though, as I said, even there we do not know when they were judged by that one verse of itself, except as it says, "judged in the flesh"."


I'm not sure I understand the objection. Both classes of people, Jew and Gentile. It does not mention any one person specifically, nor does it include every person who ever lived, but both classes (or, since other verses are relevant: All classes, tribes, nations, 'peoples'.) So forgiveness for those who are not forgiven was not provided. While all individuals must have THIS savior if any, they are not all saved, nor forgiven, though they are from a group of people that does include some of the elect upon whom God has mercy. You seem to project the very human notion, perhaps from some desire for fairness, that God would not show particular mercy to some without showing the same degree of mercy to the rest. But I don't find that notion expressed in Scripture, (nor in reason, in the end).

 

[Clare73]

For me personally, the doctrine of the Church is best because I see it as the most merciful way for God to deal with free and unrepentant souls. A “purgatory for all people” suggests that all people would want to be purged, whereas nothing I see around me suggests that anybody wants to be purged. Of course, there is always the argument about “being given an infinite amount of time, monkeys will eventually type Shakespeare,” and thus all souls surely would eventually seek purgation. But I haven’t been able to verify that, and scripture runs contrary to the notion.

You're too much!

“Post-mortum education” sounds like a sort of veiled Gnosticism. In that view, knowledge saves, I guess, because if only souls know the right thing, then they will choose the right thing? So let’s educate everyone and all will be well. Is that it? I don’t know. It seems ironic to say that the Omniscient Infinite Logos appears not to value knowledge much, but then just look at how stupid even the smartest person who ever lived was, and try to argue from the easily-deceived and -deceiving human intellect that the One Infinite Mind was ever concerned much with humans attaining a proper education in this life, much less in eternity.

Metempsychosis, to my mind, is a form of cruelty. With all due respect to God and the miracle of life, the struggle is real, and so one ride on this tilt-a-whirl is sufficient for me, thanks. If hell is what I get afterwards, well, let’s start the barbecue. At least this phase is over. (Praise Jesus!)

Annihilationism seems cruelest of all. Unimaginable pain. My consciousness and life force are ripped away? And where exactly are they ripped to? How does being even cease to be? Doesn’t work for me.

“A world where all people can see God” solves nothing for me, because the problem is not that people don’t see Him. “The devils also believe and tremble” (Js 2:19). The trouble with souls in hell is that “although they knew God, they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks” (Rm 1:21). Souls in hell do not love God. That for me is why “hell” is most merciful. He doesn’t repay us what we really deserve. If we offer Him no love, then we deserve no love. But because He is love, even hell manifests as some mysterious expression of love.

God won’t destroy me. He won’t leave me to figure out the path to Nirvana after 666 trips through this vomitorium.
He’s not trying to make sure I learn all the correct doctrines or be able to cite scripture from the best translations or be familiar with canons and councils.

Careful there. . .let's not minimize our north star in the revelation of truth from God personally.
(I know you're not, it's just part of your juxtapositioning.)

He’s not even interested in purging me except for the fact that whatever needs purging is everything that impedes my loving Him with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength.

But love is not coercive. The only coercion that God has involved me in is my being “coerced” to pass through this world here and now. And hey, it does suck, but it’s also kinda cool. Sun, wind, flowers, puppies. And He is offering me two choices here: to love Him and live with Him forever, or not to love Him and thus turn from Him forever, in which case I still get to live, and I still get to love.

As Augustine said, “Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self.” So in hell, I will be loving myself and my own will and my own sinful ways, just the same as I can in this life.

To me, the worst depiction of hell in scripture is in the story of Lazarus, and even there, it seems that Lazarus is able to love. “He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment” (Lk 16:27-8). And the answer just below that passage explains why hell lasts forever: “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead” (Lk 16:31). If the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ doesn’t convince us to love Him, then apparently nothing ever will. In that case, we keep going our own way. Sucks, but not utterly merciless.

Wow! . . .

 

[Clare73]

Amazing. I do not absolve myself of accountability! Far from it. If I don't persevere I am not saved. But my peace of mind is not dependent on myself.

You may well believe that, like with any redeemed, my disobedience still ruins my feelings of eternal security! But I do not think my success in accomplishing what God had planned for me from before the foundation of the world, is dependent on me, nor (haha) does my eternal destiny hinge on the force and integrity of my will.

Yet returning with me, with every repentance, and even before I acknowledge consciously the repentance God is working in me, is the absolute unspeakable joy of knowing that God is accomplishing everything he set out to do, and, most happily, that HE himself is pleased with what he has done. Ha! these silly words fall so short!

To whom and what are you responding?

 

[Clare73]

I agree that the context of the each parable is very important. There is often hyperbole but they are not sci-fi. Details are coming from the same source, the One who is in the bosom of the Father and who knows everything.


This is neither the context of the parable nor what we see taking place in the parable. Luke 16 started with the parable of the Shrewd Manager. In this we see a "rich man" dealing with his manager. Perhaps it was the same "rich man" mentioned in the following parable, quite likely a metaphor for Jewish leaders, with whom the Lord had much conflict.

The rich man died and went to Hades. There, his soul was quite conscious of his torment. He was able to communicate with the other side of Hades, and to see the poor Lazarus, whom he had ignored, enjoying blessings in Abraham's bosom. You said the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But in the story we read the opposite. We see that the rich man was beginning to repent in Hades. He regretted what he had done and called on to Abraham. He was finally willing to invite Lazarus to his presence.

This sounds like truth, not sci-fi. Abraham told the rich man that Lazarus could not help him. He also told the rich man that his brothers would not believe, even if a person was resurrected from the dead. Apparently predicting what is to happen after Jesus' resurrection.

The rich man was beginning to repent, but we are not told what happened next. Our curiosity is not satisfied. The moral of the parable is that those of us who have the means and the power must attend to the needy. And that we must believe in the resurrected One.
I doubt very much that all this was a hypothetical story.

The word "Hades" is mentioned 11 times in the NT. The equivalent "Sheol" is mentioned a lot in the OT. I understand that believers in post-mortem unconsciousness or immediate resurrection see all these as references to "the grave." But is this warranted?

Sheol was the holding place for the dead, which consisted of two parts,
not only Hades but also Abraham's bosom (side), Paradise.

 

[Clare73]

In post #306, I quoted the following from Wikipedia:

'Although the Harrowing of Hell is taught by the Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox traditions, a number of Christians reject the doctrine of the "harrowing of hell", claiming that "there is scant scriptural evidence for [it], and that Jesus's own words contradict it".'

When you objected to Reformed believing this, I checked several websites and, indeed, Reformed, Lutherans, and Methodists do _not_ believe in Harrowing of Hell. And, of course, Evangelicals do not. Only Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans do.

Wikipedia is wrong.

Surprise, surprise. . .

Harrowing of Hell – The Episcopal Church

3 Reasons Why Christ’s Descent into Hell Is Good News - Anglican Compass

The Harrowing of Hell | St. Luke's Episcopal Church

 

[Clare73]

I’m under the impression that Christ paid for the sins of the world and He will choose who will enter heaven and who will not. I don’t believe that sin is the determining factor for salvation but instead the state of our hearts intent.

Correct, sin is not the determining factor. In NT apostolic teaching, faith is the determining factor. . .
faith in and trust on the person and atoning work (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ
for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty."

If our heart desires to love and serve God tho we may still sin from time to time we will still be saved and no further punishment or payment is due for our sins because they have been paid in full.

 

[Der Alte]

Sheol was the holding place for the dead, which consisted of two parts, not only Hades but also Abraham's bosom (side), Paradise.

"Abraham's Bosom" is not a place, it is a position. In Biblical times people did not sit on chairs at a waist high table they reclined on their left elbow at a low table with their feet extended away from the table. That is how the woman was able to wash Jesus' feet and washed them with her tears. In that time, a woman did not crawl around under a table at the feet of strange men.

Abraham's Bosom
In the New Testament and in Jewish writings a term signifying the abodeof bliss in the other world. According to IV Macc. xiii. 17, the righteous who die for their faith are received by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in paradise (compare Matt. viii. 11: "Many shall come from the east and the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven"). In Ḳid. 72b, Adda bar Ahaba, a rabbi of the third century, is said to be "sitting in the bosom of Abraham," which means that he has entered paradise.
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

 

[Der Alte]

Sheol was the holding place for the dead, which consisted of two parts,
not only Hades but also Abraham's bosom (side), Paradise.

¢¢Below are quotes from three credible Jewish sources; the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Which to date have not been, and I am convinced cannot be, refuted.
…..According to these three sources, 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 disprove anything in this post.

[1]1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the sons 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 paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA]
Note: This is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA
This refutes the false narrative that when Jesus mentioned “Gehenna” He was supposedly referring to nonexistent continually burning fires in the valley of GeHinnom where trash and bodies were supposedly disposed of.
”(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai [30 BC-90 AD] 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 [Talmud]. 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).[Talmud] “When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; [Talmud] 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)[Talmud].
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
[2]1972 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.
Link:Gehinnom

http://www.jevzajcg.me/enciklopedia/Encyclopaedia Judaica, v. 07 (Fey-Gor).pdf
= = = = = = = = = =
[3]pre-Christianity 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.​

When Jesus taught e.g.,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell [Γέεννα/gehenna] where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3 times Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6 [A fate worse than death. DA]
• “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. …And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24 [A fate worse than death]
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12​

[A fate worse than death. DA]
…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell, c.f. Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and Talmud, supra.
In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death without mercy is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. [A fate worse than death. DA] ​

…..“how much sorer punishment,””Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord,””It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” these deprecations certainly do not sound like everyone will be saved, no matter what.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say eternal death, in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.”
….The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, see Acts of the Apostles 23:8. They knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it was permanent and often it did not involve punishment.
When Jesus taught, e.g., “eternal punishment” the Sadducees would not have understood it as simply death, it very likely would have meant something worse to them.
…..Re: Matt 25:46 concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,

“Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4​

…..Jesus attended Temple and synagogues for about 25 years +/-. He undoubtedly knew what the Jews believed about the fate of the unrighteous. He opposed the Jewish leaders many times, If the Jewish teaching on hell was wrong, why wouldn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, e.g.

"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"[/i] ([Judith xvi:17]Judith xvi. 17).
Link: Judith, CHAPTER 16​

 

[Clare73]

I agree that the context of the each parable is very important. There is often hyperbole but they are not sci-fi. Details are coming from the same source, the One who is in the bosom of the Father and who knows everything.


This is neither the context of the parable nor what we see taking place in the parable. Luke 16 started with the parable of the Shrewd Manager. In this we see a "rich man" dealing with his manager. Perhaps it was the same "rich man" mentioned in the following parable, quite likely a metaphor for Jewish leaders, with whom the Lord had much conflict.

The rich man died and went to Hades. There, his soul was quite conscious of his torment. He was able to communicate with the other side of Hades, and to see the poor Lazarus, whom he had ignored, enjoying blessings in Abraham's bosom. You said the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But in the story we read the opposite. We see that the rich man was beginning to repent in Hades. He regretted what he had done and called on to Abraham. He was finally willing to invite Lazarus to his presence.

This sounds like truth, not sci-fi. Abraham told the rich man that Lazarus could not help him. He also told the rich man that his brothers would not believe, even if a person was resurrected from the dead. Apparently predicting what is to happen after Jesus' resurrection.

The rich man was beginning to repent, but we are not told what happened next. Our curiosity is not satisfied. The moral of the parable is that those of us who have the means and the power must attend to the needy. And that we must believe in the resurrected One.

Was it really repentance and agreeing with God, or just a need for fire insurance?

I doubt very much that all this was a hypothetical story. The word "Hades" is mentioned 11 times in the NT. The equivalent "Sheol" is mentioned a lot in the OT. I understand that believers in post-mortem unconsciousness or immediate resurrection see all these as references to "the grave." But is this warranted?

 

[Clare73]

From Calvinism to Evangelicalism to Dispensationalism there is clearly progressive ignorance of history. This is perhaps why Dispensational pre-Millennialism attracts so many people, it gives them a false sense of knowledge.

Are you saying the ignorance begins with Calvinism and moves to Evangelicalism?
Specifically what ignorance?