Does hell exist?

[God of Love]

Originally posted by drmmjr
God of Love, 


God is a merciful God. He doesn't want anyone to suffer for eternity, so those who don't accept the gift are thrown into the Lake of fire to be destroyed.

drmmjr,

By your belief, which is it?  How can one suffer for eternity if they are thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed?

Mat 25:46 -- And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

2 Cor 5:10 -- For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

I agree that God is a merciful God.  Mercy defined is "compassion shown to an offender or an unfortunate victim."  At times, most of us are both.

To believe that God would "destroy us" or subject us to "eternal torment" directly conflicts with mercy and unconditional love.  God (actually Christ) "judges" us by showing us a review of our life.  It is us, however -- our conscious --  who determines whether we then suffer "hell" for our "wrong-doings".

God of love  

 

 

[drmmjr]

Originally posted by God of Love
drmmjr,

By your belief, which is it? How can one suffer for eternity if they are thrown into the lake of fire and destroyed?

They are not suffering for eternity after being thrown into the lake of fire. They are destroyed. What I was saying is that God doesn't want those who don't accept His gift of eternal/everlasting life to suffer. He "puts them out of their misery" by destruction.

There are two choices.
1 - to accept the gift of God (eternal/everlasting life)
2 - not accept the gift and be destroyed in the lake of fire.

Mat 25:46 -- And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

2 Cor 5:10 -- For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

I agree that God is a merciful God. Mercy defined is "compassion shown to an offender or an unfortunate victim. " At times, most of us are both.

To believe that God would "destroy us" or subject us to "eternal torment" directly conflicts with mercy and unconditional love. God (actually Christ) "judges" us by showing us a review of our life. It is us, however -- our conscious -- who determines whether we then suffer "hell" for our "wrong-doings".

God of love

I don't see destruction as a conflict with mercy and unconditional love. We are given the choice to accept God's gift. He does not push it onto us. He wants us to take it, but if we don't then it is our problem. But God is merciful and loving.

I know this may not be a good example, but let's look at it anyway.

A person has a child who they love very much. Let's say that this child did not listen to their parent and went out and did some things that the parent dissapproved of. As a result the child is involved in an auto accident and as a result is in a coma and on life support.

Now, is it more loving to keep that child on life support, and possibly in constant pain, or more loving to pull the plug on the child. Now I realize that you will say that by pulling the plug the child will go to heaven. Let's not even consider that as an option in this case (since at the judgement, those not accepting God's gift don't have that option).

Is it more loving and merciful to keep someone in pain, or to destroy them where they won't know anything.

It looks like, by your thinking, we are responsible for being condemned to the lake of fire. In a sense we are, but God and Jesus are the final judges.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by FineLinen
We should also point out that Jesus did not believe ANYTHING like the Jews of his day, and HE defines belief not them!

The word "ANYTHING" makes this a false statement. I backed that up with scripture in my previous post. did YOU miss my point?

"Jesus clearly said they were teaching the traditions of men, not the word of God, so their "definitions" as to what the fire was, or was not, is literally useless in determining if Jesus taught it or not."

In the passage which you have misused three times Jesus was talking about two specific things, "washing pots" and "qorban" traditions which allowed people to neglect their parents, as required by the ten commandments. The last part of your statement, ". . so their "definitions" as to what the fire was, or was not, is literally useless in determining if Jesus taught it or not." makes it false. Jesus said nothing about fire in his discussions with the Pharisees. If the Bible is silent a good rule is to also be silent.

Things I Have Learned From The Old Shepherd[/b]

1. The PhD's are just some "dudes" opinion. 

2. There is a common sense to the Bible.

3. Isaiah is not Jeremiah.

4. "Do numbers indicate truth?"

5. "Answer your own questions, and I will tell you if you are right or not."

As with many of your responses misleading and out-of-context. Your forte seems to be misrepresenting what I say to make it appear you know what you are talking about.

 

[God of Love]

Originally posted by drmmjr
They are not suffering for eternity after being thrown into the lake of fire. They are destroyed. What I was saying is that God doesn't want those who don't accept His gift of eternal/everlasting life to suffer. He "puts them out of their misery" by destruction.

 

Please refer back to Matthew 25:46.  This verse is Christ speaking, and He purposely chose the verbage "everlasting punishment".  If they are "destroyed", the punishment can not be "everlasting".  Are you suggesting that Christ was wrong?

There are two choices.
1 - to accept the gift of God (eternal/everlasting life)
2 - not accept the gift and be destroyed in the lake of fire.

These are not "choices", this is an ULTIMATUM.  In perfect love (unconditional love), there is no fear.  Perfect love casteth out fear. 

What you're suggesting is that God "fears" we might not accept Him and therefore has given us an ultimatum: either we accept Him (and live), or deny Him (and die in severe pain).

There are no "threats" nor "ultimatum" nor conditions in unconditional love.  The mere presence of any of these would make the love CONDITIONAL and less than perfect.

 I don't see destruction as a conflict with mercy and unconditional love. We are given the choice to accept God's gift. He does not push it onto us. He wants us to take it, but if we don't then it is our problem. But God is merciful and loving.

It would be like your parents saying "Here are my rules.  If you don't follow them, the punishment is death.  If you do follow them, we'll pay for your college."

How could the parent love the child unconditionally, and then kill it for non-obedience?  The two are like water and oil: they do not mix.  In this same way, God does not "kill" His children.  The "punishment" is self-imposed.  We bring "Hell" upon ourselves, by (upon seeing life review), knowing that we did (or did not, in the case of Hell), aspire to be All We Could Be while living.  That because of earthly FEARS -- greed, pride, lust, etc. -- we failed to spiritually achieve (store treasures in heaven), and even stooped to the level of performing mean or unjust acts against our "brothers and sisters" (God's other children).    

It looks like, by your thinking, we are responsible for being condemned to the lake of fire. In a sense we are, but God and Jesus are the final judges.

Of course we are responsible.  To believe otherwise is to shun responsibility for our own actions (unless you believe in Fate).  By the argument you've presented (not mine), if one has been "saved" today, but tomorrow denounces God and goes on a killing spree -- and is shot down and killed during their rampage -- without repentence -- they would be making the "choice" of potentially forfeiting their salvation.  If they have true free will, that means they are ultimately responsible for this forfeit, not God or Jesus.

But yet again, the argument you're suggesting does not concur with unconditional love.  With unconditional love, there can be no conditions.  You're attempting to conditionalize the unconditional.  That is to say, God will love us REGARDLESS of the decisions we make... without strings or conditions.  Not only will He love and forgive, but He certainly would not "kill" or "torture".

Again, the concept of Hell being a physical place is one of Man's numerous misperceptions.  This mirrors Man's erroneous concepts of "Need", "Requirement", and "Limited Supply".   

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by FineLinen
1. The PhD's are just some "dudes" opinion.

As I said in a previous post this is a misrepresentation, taken out-of-context. Here are summaries of two personal experiences which illustrate my position. Just because someone has a PhD and they say something, that does does not necessarily make what they say true.

Here is the story of Dr. Percy Collett, with whom I was personally acquainted. Dr. Collett was formerly a missionary to So. America. He preached at the church I attended, '83-'88, several times. He was very enthusiastic about missions, which is a good thing. BUT in the late 80's Dr. Collett helped start a movement which claimed that Jesus was returning on October 28 of that year. Many people's lives, in the U.S. and Asia, were destroyed. They sold all their property, and went into the mountains, wearing white robes, and waited for the prophesied appearance, which never came. And OBTW, Dr. Collett was an MD, he was a medical missionary! The fact that he was a Dr. did not make him right!

Here is the story of another person I am acquainted with. I will call him Bill. Bill is a Messianic Christian, who has two earned PhDs. I became acquainted with him at another forum about 4 years ago. Bill’s Biblical views were often challenged by others on the same basis as here, because someone supposedly with a PhD had written something which appeared to contradict him. Bill was the first to say, “Merely having a PhD, or in his case two PhD’s, was irrelevant unless the degrees were in the subject being discussed.” Bill’s two degrees were in Physics. He posted under the name “ThePhysicist.” The fact that he had two earned PhDs did not make him an authority on the Bible!

Linen has posted quotes from a half dozen or so “scholars” whom he claims have PhDs. In response I have asked, several times, are these “scholars” recognized Greek or Hebrew or Bible History authorities? The question has never been answered. I assume that to be an answer in the negative.

Just because someone has a PhD, that means nothing unless that person is addressing the area of their specialty. For example, simply because a person has a PhD in Christian music or Christian counseling that does NOT make them an authority in Bible history or Biblical languages.

OTOH, I have presented evidence from ancient Jewish authorities, i.e. the Talmud. Although there were at least five major factions within Judaism; Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, scribes, and Zealots, Linen arbitrarily rejected all the ancient Jewish sources because they were, according to him, “Pharisees.” It is not clear how he would know that all the ancient Jewish writings were written by Pharisees and not the other factions.

I have also posted quotations from recognized language authorities, the 200+ year old Liddell-Scott–Jones (LSJ) lexicon of classical Greek, the 200+ year old Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) lexicon of Hebrew, The Theological Wordbook of the O.T. (TWOT), The Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker (BAGD) lexicon of N.T. Greek, and the Theological Dictionary of the N.T. (TDNT). But, according to Linen, these sources are all wrong because he quoted some “scholars” who have a PhD in “something!”

I also posted evidence from the early church fathers (ECF) proving that the early church interpreted the scriptures on eternal punishment in the same way as the ancient Jews. Linen arbitrarily rejected the writing of the ECF because , according to him, they were all pagan before they were converted. Although Linen, himself, quoted from Homer, a pagan Greek poet, and the 4th century historian, formerly pagan, Eusebius and several other “pagan” ECF. The criterion appears to be if they contradict Linen they are wrong, pagan, Pharisees, etc but if they support his argument then it is okay to quote them.

To summarize, according to Linen the ancient Jews were ALL wrong! The ECF were ALL wrong! All the recognized Biblical Hebrew and Greek language resources, BAGD, BDB, TWOT, TDNT, LSJ, are ALL wrong! The only people, in the entire 2000 year history of the Christian church, who are right are the few, 19th and 20th century, Universalist “scholars” Linen has quoted. And we know that because Linen has told us that.

Evidently Linen’s “scholars” were born perfect and were not sinners before becoming Christians, and their pre-Christian views will not, do not, taint their writings, these views and opinions are accepted at face value. However, the writings and views of the Christian early church fathers are not acceptable because their writings are tainted by their pre-Christian, supposedly pagan, views. Linen made this determination without any proof or evidence. Koolaid, anyone?

 

[OldShepherd]

It has been suggested that God’s punishment always has the purpose of correction, cleansing, and forgiveness. Many convoluted, complicated, involved discussions have been posted, to support this, citing verses that have no relationship to punishment. Here are commands, which God gave the ancient Hebrews, concerning foreign idol worshipping nations and even Jewish elders, and priests who desecrated God’s own temple.

Notice, God tells his people to kill, to destroy, even the women and children and to have no mercy! Also God Himself says “my eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity.”

The views presented here, by Linen and others, would permit the vilest, most heinous killer, to spend an eternity in paradise, after only being in the grave, for some period of time, because according to them, God’s purpose in punishing is always to cleanse, correct, and forgive. According to them even Hitler and Stalin who tortured and murdered millions will eventually be granted eternal life in paradise, after spending some time in the grave.

Where is the cleansing, correction, and forgiveness in God’s dealing with the Hittites, the Girgash1tes, the Amorites, Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites and his own elders and priests who desecrated the very temple of God. Did God direct that they be punished for a short period of time and when they were corrected and cleansed to be forgiven?

Why would the God of the Universalists, who only punishes to cleanse, correct, and forgive, utterly destroy innocent little children and babies? What kind of sins could children and babies have committed which would deserve death without any chance of forgiveness?

• 
  Deut 7:1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgash1tes, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
  2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
  
  De 20:17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
  
  Jos 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and @ss, with the edge of the sword.
  
  Jos 11:11 And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.
  
  Ezek 9:4 And the LORD יהוה said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark* upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.

* Literally והתוית תו, “tau a tau” The word for mark is the same as the name of the final letter in the Hebrew alphabet, “tau.” In the ancient Paleo-Hebrew alphabet the letter “tau” was in the form of a cross.

• 
  5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
  6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
  7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
  8 And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
  9 Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.
  10 And as for me [יהוה] also, mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity, but I will recompense their way upon their head.

What is God’s nature as illustrated by these passages? Can those who defy God, curse Him, blaspheme Him, disobey His commandments, commit murder and every other heinous crime, expect to be treated any different than the children and babies of the Hittites, the Girgash1tes, the Amorites, Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites and the children and babies of the priests and elders of God’s own people who desecrated His temple?

 

[FineLinen]

Good morning again to you Old Shepherd. You posted...

FineLinen

 
"Jesus clearly said they were teaching the traditions of men, not the word of God, so their "definitions" as to what the fire was, or was not, is literally useless in determining if Jesus taught it or not."

Old Shepherd

 
In the passage which you have misused three times Jesus was talking about two specific things, "washing pots" and "qorban" traditions which allowed people to neglect their parents, as required by the ten commandments.

FineLinen

The Christ, in His words to the Pharisees declared worship that is in vain. In Mark 7 we behold these whitewashed tombs eating with the utmost care and holding the "traditions of the elders" or the "rules handed down from their ancestors" and Christ Jesus declaring that Isaiah prophesied of them "Howbeit in vain to they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men/ the precepts of men" and "laying aside/neglecting the commandment of God, you cling to what men hand down." Yes indeed, Old Shepherd, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ spoke to the Religious Right of His day with these words....

"Blind leaders! You filter your wine to get rid of a gnat, and you swallow a camel..."

"You call yourself leaders, and yet you can't see an inch before your noses, for you filter out a mosquito and swallow a camel." 

Continuing to address them as white-washed tombs, or "white-washed graves".

"You pay tithes on mint and dill and cummin/ you pay tithes on the last mint leaf in your garden, and have left undone/dismissed/overlooked the weighter demands of the law, justice and mercy and faith."

Yes, our Lord put high regards on the Pharisees! You now occupy the chair of Moses "binding back-breaking burdens" and lay them on men's shoulders.

"Boldly written texts they carry, and deep is the hem of their garments/ they wear Scripture texts like charms/wearing on their arms large prayer boxes with Scripture verses inside, and lengthening the memorial fringes of their robes."

These individuals who rose to destroy the Living One with their Scriptures dangling on their charm bracelets; indeed spoke of Corban, and washing pots to these "tombs" of tradition.  Our Lord declared Moses said..."but you say" making the word of God "of none effect" or "making void/ nullifying/ make invalid the word of God" "in order to protect your MAN-MADE DOCTRINE."

My friend, it only "appears" that I know what I am talking about; the Christ, the predestined Lord of the universe, knew exactly what He was talking about!

You white-washed tombs are "Making the word of God of none effect through/by/in order to protect your man-made tradition." And lest you imagine that these man-made traditions were limited to two issues, Corban and washing of pots,  let's read together Mark 7:13.....

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: AND MANY SUCH THINGS ye do"

We will not cover the Koine Greek word for many, but polus, is expressed to these "saintly" rascals as "many such things you do in order to protect your man-made doctrines", and, "You have many such practices in order to protect your man-made tradition" and "Many other things that you do are just like that." (Corban & washing of pots)

My brother, may this be a wonderful day within His presence for you!

"The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts."  A.W. Tozer (The Pursuit of God)

 

I see the Lord, high and lifted up,
And His glory fills the earth.
His face shines like the sun,
It is light to everyone.
And the glory that falls on me,
Is the glory that sets me free.

Angels cry holy is the Lord,
Seated on the praises of His people.
Nations cry worthy is the Lamb,
Saviour of the world, He is exalted.

 

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by FineLinen
My friend, it only "appears" that I know what I am talking about; the Christ, the predestined Lord of the universe, knew exactly what He was talking about!

Once again you address only one or two sentences out of a longer post. And those are very interesting scriptures. I wonder how many are the different evangelists speaking of the same incident. But no matter. I note while you have been frantically searching for "proof texts" to support your argument, once again you have avoided Mat 23:3. And in all those verses you quoted I did not see where Jesus contradicted the BCE and Pharisaical view of hell and eternal punishment. Where exactly is that?While you are presuming to interpret the scriptures for me perhaps you can tell me what the words "all whatsoever" mean?

• 
  Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they [scribes and Pharisees, vs. 2] bid (epo) you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
  
  2036epw epo ep’-o
  a primary verb (used only in the definite past tense, the others being borrowed from 2046, 4483, and 5346:: v
  AV - say 859, speak 57, tell 41, command 8, bid 5, misc 6, vr say 1; 977
  1) to speak, say

 

[drmmjr]

Originally posted by God of Love
Please refer back to Matthew 25:46. This verse is Christ speaking, and He purposely chose the verbage "everlasting punishment". If they are "destroyed", the punishment can not be "everlasting". Are you suggesting that Christ was wrong?

You are confusing "punishment" with "punishing". Punishment is the penalty, punishing is inflicting the penalty. Yes the punishment /penalty is everlasting, but the inflicting of the penalty ends in the lake of fire. The punishment is everlasting in that once it is done, it cannot be reversed.

These are not "choices", this is an ULTIMATUM. In perfect love (unconditional love), there is no fear. Perfect love casteth out fear.

What you're suggesting is that God "fears" we might not accept Him and therefore has given us an ultimatum: either we accept Him (and live), or deny Him (and die in severe pain).

There are no "threats" nor "ultimatum" nor conditions in unconditional love. The mere presence of any of these would make the love CONDITIONAL and less than perfect.

How do you define "fear"?
FEAR
1. A painful emotion or passion excited by the expectation of evil, or the apprehension of impending danger; apprehension; anxiety; solicitude; alarm; dread.
2. (a) Apprehension of incurring, or solicitude to avoid, God's wrath; the trembling and awful reverence felt toward the Supreme Belng.
(b) Respectful reverence for men of authority or worth.
3. That which causes, or which is the object of, apprehension or alarm; source or occasion of terror; danger; dreadfulness.

We should fear God as in the second definition. If you are doing God's will, then you should have no fear of Him.

I'm not saying that "God "fears" we might not accept Him and therefore has given us an ultimatum: either we accept Him (and live), or deny Him (and die in severe pain)." The ultimatum came from God. Look at what He told Adam in the Garden of Eden. He told Adam not to do something or suffer the consequences. And what did Adam do? He went right ahead and did what God told him not to do.

Should God not have punished Adam? What was the punishment?

It would be like your parents saying "Here are my rules. If you don't follow them, the punishment is death. If you do follow them, we'll pay for your college."

Exactly, only God was saying, "If you follow my rules, you get to stay in the Garden forever."

How could the parent love the child unconditionally, and then kill it for non-obedience? The two are like water and oil: they do not mix. In this same way, God does not "kill" His children. The "punishment" is self-imposed. We bring "Hell" upon ourselves, by (upon seeing life review), knowing that we did (or did not, in the case of Hell), aspire to be All We Could Be while living. That because of earthly FEARS -- greed, pride, lust, etc. -- we failed to spiritually achieve (store treasures in heaven), and even stooped to the level of performing mean or unjust acts against our "brothers and sisters" (God's other children).

Every parent has rules. God has rules. With rules come punishments. The more the parent loves the child, the more harsher the punishment. Parents don't want to have to inflict the punishment. God doesn't want to have to inflict the punishment. But if the child knows what the punishment for disobedience is and still disobeys, then the child brought it upon themselves. Rules are there for a purpose. You love God and accept His Son, or you don't. If you accept God's Son, you get the gift that He has promised you. Likewise, if you don't accept God's Son, then you get the punishment, that was likewise promised.

Of course we are responsible. To believe otherwise is to shun responsibility for our own actions (unless you believe in Fate). By the argument you've presented (not mine), if one has been "saved" today, but tomorrow denounces God and goes on a killing spree -- and is shot down and killed during their rampage -- without repentence -- they would be making the "choice" of potentially forfeiting their salvation. If they have true free will, that means they are ultimately responsible for this forfeit, not God or Jesus.

Exactly. It only takes one sin to be removed from the Book of Life. Of course, if a person truely is doing the will of God and living a life that honors God, then they won't "go on a killing spree". But if they do, then they are not following the rules that God has set.

But yet again, the argument you're suggesting does not concur with unconditional love. With unconditional love, there can be no conditions. You're attempting to conditionalize the unconditional. That is to say, God will love us REGARDLESS of the decisions we make... without strings or conditions. Not only will He love and forgive, but He certainly would not "kill" or "torture".

Oh, but it does. Just because a person has done wrong, or doesn't believe in Jesus, God still loves them. God's love doesn't go away. and neither does the punishment.

Again, the concept of Hell being a physical place is one of Man's numerous misperceptions. This mirrors Man's erroneous concepts of "Need", "Requirement", and "Limited Supply".

I'll agree with you that the conept of Hell being a physical plase is one of Man's numerous misperceptions. But if you believe this, then how can you say that there is everlasting punishment? If there is everlasting punishment as I take you to mean, then there would have to be a place for this to happen in. You can't have it both ways.

Just some thoughts. Have a good afternoon.

 

[FineLinen]

Greetings again Old Shepherd....I have been "frantically searching" for proof texts again. Please be patient while I catch my bre...brea...breat....breath.....Oh, good gracious me, I nearly imploded!

As we know, our Lord held the Pharisees in high regards; His lively words of Life pointing directly into their wicked hearts!

"The spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in the place from which Moses used to teach. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe and do: but do not follow their example for they tell you one thing and do another. For they bind heavy burdens...and lay them on men's shoulders but the decline themselves to lift a finger to move them. Whatever they do is done for show/ to be seen of men, they enlarge the borders of their garments/ boldly written are the texts they carry/ they act holy by wearing on their arms large prayer boxes with Scripturr verses inside, and by lengthening the memorial fringes of their robes!

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!"

"You travel about on sea and land to make one convert and when he is made, you make him twice as worthy of damnation as yourselves."

"Woe unto you, you blind guides...you fools and blind...woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, you utter frauds, for you tithe to the last mint leaf in your garden and have left undone/dismissed the weighter matters of the law, judgement, mercy and faith:...you blind guides/leaders which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel...you call yourself leaders and yet you can't see an inch before your noses...woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites...you blind Pharisee...you are like unto whited sepulchres/ white-washed tombs/graves, they appear beautiful on the outside but are full of all manner of corruption/filth/rottenness/every kind of decay, there is nothing but hypocrisy and wickedness within you....woe unto you scribes and Pharisees...go then and fill up to the the brim the cup of your forefathers guilt...you serpents, offspring of vipers how can you escape the rubbish heap?

"All therefore whatsover they bid you observe, that observe and do...."

Observe= Tereo=

To attend to carefully.

Take care to guard/ to observe.

To reserve: to undergo something.

Tereo Rooted In Theoreo

Theoreo=

To be a spectator.

To look at/ behold.

To view attentively.

To take a view, survey.

To discern/ decry.

To ascertain/ find out by seeing.

Tereo & poleo

"And do"=

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4160&version=

"The crying need of the present day church is Holy Ghost-baptized brains and hearts, and not in that particular order."

"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way."  C.S. Lewis (The Great Divorce)  

 
Hear the sound of heaven

Like the sound of many waters

It's the sound of worship 

Coming from the throne.  

Cries of adoration

As men from every nation

Lift their voice to make His glory known....

Holy holy holy are You Lord

Holy holy holy are You Lord

The elders and angels bow

The redeemed worship You now 

Holy holy holy are You Lord.
 

 

[God of Love]

Originally posted by drmmjr
You are confusing "punishment" with "punishing". Punishment is the penalty, punishing is inflicting the penalty. Yes the punishment /penalty is everlasting, but the inflicting of the penalty ends in the lake of fire. The punishment is everlasting in that once it is done, it cannot be reversed.

I believe that God has given us "rules" for our own safety.  The universe is a complex mechanism, and there are certain workings of that mechanism that (most of) Mankind has yet to understand.

"The Law of Gravity" might serve as an example for our discussion here (since Man DOES understand this law).  For example, if a person goes onto the second story of a building, and steps over the edge (without wearing any type of restraint), that person is going to fall.  It's a simple matter of, if one decides to attempt to "defy" gravity, there will likely be consequences.

In this case, "falling" is merely the probable outcome of "defying gravity".  It is not a case of gravity imposing a punishment if you break its "rule", but rather an expected consequence of a certain action.

In this manner, I believe God has given us rules to protect us from ourselves (and/or universal principles).  But herein, it is not a case of God inflicting the punishment, but rather God giving us a warning ("Thou shalt not step off buildings") to protect.

In unconditional love, there is no fear.  You do not need to "fear" that someone will betray you.  You do not "fear" that someone will not accept you.  You love them REGARDLESS of what they do and therefore can not IMPOSE penalties for certain actions or behaviors.

Understand???

There is a difference between naturally occuring consequences and the imposement of penalites. 

In case you don't (no harm intended toward your intelligence, I'm just wondering if I am presenting this clearly...) let's go one step further.  As an example, many years ago, I had a large dog who loved me "unconditionally".  If the dog did something "wrong", I spanked it.  Yet regardless of how many times I spanked the dog (I didn't spank it weekly or anything... but am just making a point here), the dog still loved me.

Had the dog growled at me during a spanking, it would have been an "ultimatum" or "threat" on the part of the dog, meaning "If you do that again, I'll bite you".  And at the INSTANT the dog growled, I could not longer ever again say the dog loved me UNCONDITIONALLY.  What I would have to say is, the dog loved me UNLESS I spanked it.

Does that make sense to you?

The dog would have IMPOSED CONDITIONS.

What I'm saying is, I do not believe God "threatens" or "growls" with rules and potential "punishment/rewards".  Such behavior indicates the presence of a "fear", and is not conducive to uncondition love.

    

How do you define "fear"?
FEAR
1. A painful emotion or passion excited by the expectation of evil, or the apprehension of impending danger; apprehension; anxiety; solicitude; alarm; dread.
2. (a) Apprehension of incurring, or solicitude to avoid, God's wrath; the trembling and awful reverence felt toward the Supreme Belng.
(b) Respectful reverence for men of authority or worth.
3. That which causes, or which is the object of, apprehension or alarm; source or occasion of terror; danger; dreadfulness.

There are true two emotions in existence: unconditional love and fear (the conditionalizer).  Everything else is a "blend" of these two primary emotions. 

For example, "Awe" or "Reverence" is a blend of fear and love.  It is neither one in it's primary form, but falls someplace in between.

Love allows us to stand naked; fear causes us to clothe ourselves.

 Look at what He told Adam in the Garden of Eden. He told Adam not to do something or suffer the consequences. And what did Adam do? He went right ahead and did what God told him not to do.

The story of Adam and Eve is "symbolic" in nature, not literal.  To believe it literally is to open a totally new and larger can of worms.

Every parent has rules.

Exactly.  Parents have rules, but it would appear you have not given this subject deep enough thought.

Let's look at an example. 

Let's say that a parent tells their child "Thou shalt not to play in the street". 

The REASONING for this rule is, there exist certain risks and potential consequences (just like stepping off a building).  The risk is playing in the street.  The potential consequence is being run over by a drunk (and left maimed or dead).

So long as the parent does not IMPOSE any punishment (of their own), it is merely a rule enabling the child to exercise their free will.  They can avoid the street (and associated risks), or they can accept the potential risks/consequences for breaking this rule.

When the parents IMPOSE penalites and punishments, it changes from a "rule" to a threat or ultimatum.  And if this punishment is "death" (being thrown into fire), in effect, they are taking away the child's free will by forcing the child to obey (OR ELSE!).  This type of behavior is fear-based, and is not of the God I love. 

Again, perfect love has no fear. 

What purpose would God have to create someone knowing (supernaturally) they would never accept his "Gift" and he would eventually have to "kill" it?

I'll agree with you that the conept of Hell being a physical plase is one of Man's numerous misperceptions. But if you believe this, then how can you say that there is everlasting punishment? If there is everlasting punishment as I take you to mean, then there would have to be a place for this to happen in. You can't have it both ways.

Of course you can.  My belief differs from yours because I believe life is eternal.  Knowing that God will not "kill" us, life will continue on.  The difference between those who "live" and those who suffer "Hell" is that those who "live" aren't left with the regrets of their actions.  Those who "suffer hell" however, are left with burdens they must carry with them (just as we have regrets for our own past wrong-doings).  But with every mistake we make, there exists the opportunity for learning. 

By the way, thank you for responding.  I've enjoyed it.

God of Love

 

[drmmjr]

In case you don't (no harm intended toward your intelligence, I'm just wondering if I am presenting this clearly...) let's go one step further. As an example, many years ago, I had a large dog who loved me "unconditionally". If the dog did something "wrong", I spanked it. Yet regardless of how many times I spanked the dog (I didn't spank it weekly or anything... but am just making a point here), the dog still loved me.

Had the dog growled at me during a spanking, it would have been an "ultimatum" or "threat" on the part of the dog, meaning "If you do that again, I'll bite you". And at the INSTANT the dog growled, I could not longer ever again say the dog loved me UNCONDITIONALLY. What I would have to say is, the dog loved me UNLESS I spanked it.

No harm taken.

I your example, you would be God and the dog would be man. Now, you have said that if the dog did something "wrong" you spanked it. You were punishing it for doing something that it wasn't supposed to do. Did you still love your dog? Of course. And as you point out, your dog loved you "unconditionally".

But in our earlier posts, we were speaking of God loving us unconditionally. You love your dog even when it does something wrong, but know that it needs to understand that it did something wrong. Hence the punishment. Spare the rod and spoil the dog. Punishment does not mean a lack of love, in fact it means that there is love.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

The story of Adam and Eve is "symbolic" in nature, not literal. To believe it literally is to open a totally new and larger can of worms.

And why do you think that this is "symbolic"? This is the whole reason for Jesus. I'm not sure what can of worms you are speaking of, but I guess that we can get into that later or on another thread.

Let's say that a parent tells their child "Thou shalt not to play in the street".

The REASONING for this rule is, there exist certain risks and potential consequences (just like stepping off a building). The risk is playing in the street. The potential consequence is being run over by a drunk (and left maimed or dead).

So long as the parent does not IMPOSE any punishment (of their own), it is merely a rule enabling the child to exercise their free will. They can avoid the street (and associated risks), or they can accept the potential risks/consequences for breaking this rule.

When the parents IMPOSE penalites and punishments, it changes from a "rule" to a threat or ultimatum. And if this punishment is "death" (being thrown into fire), in effect, they are taking away the child's free will by forcing the child to obey (OR ELSE!). This type of behavior is fear-based, and is not of the God I love.

A rule still has consequences. You may call them penalties and punishments, but they are still consequences. A person still has free will to obey the rule or not obey the rule. When your parents told you to be back from a date by 11:00, did you still love them when they "grounded" you for a week?

What purpose would God have to create someone knowing (supernaturally) they would never accept his "Gift" and he would eventually have to "kill" it?

That's what free will is all about.

Of course you can. My belief differs from yours because I believe life is eternal. Knowing that God will not "kill" us, life will continue on. The difference between those who "live" and those who suffer "Hell" is that those who "live" aren't left with the regrets of their actions. Those who "suffer hell" however, are left with burdens they must carry with them (just as we have regrets for our own past wrong-doings). But with every mistake we make, there exists the opportunity for learning.

If life is eternal, then why did God place Cherubims to guard the tree of life, and keep man from eating the fruit.

Genesis 3:23 - Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
24So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Oh, but then again, you think that Adam and Eve is "symbolic", and didn't happen.

You need to remember that eternal/everlasting life is a gift from God, not something that we already have.

Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

And who will receive these wages of sin?

Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 - Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 - Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 - To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

By the way, thank you for responding. I've enjoyed it.

This has been an interesting discussion.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by FineLinen
As we know, our Lord held the Pharisees in high regards; His lively words of Life pointing directly into their wicked hearts! . . .MOS. . .

*BUMP*
*BUMP*
*BUMP*

 

[OldShepherd]

Posted by Linen
These individuals who rose to destroy the Living One with their Scriptures dangling on their charm bracelets; indeed spoke of Corban, and washing pots to these "tombs" of tradition. Our Lord declared Moses said..."but you say" making the word of God "of none effect" or "making void/ nullifying/ make invalid the word of God" "in order to protect your MAN-MADE DOCTRINE."

By all means let us closely examine the very scripture you quoted lest I be guilty of the same hypocritical blindness, here exhibited. Unlike you, I have no qualms reviewing and exegeting the scriptures you have quoted, actually misquoted, in furtherance of your argument.

• 
  Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
  7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
  8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

To what does the phrase, “and many other such like things ye do.”, refer? Everything the Pharisees taught and practiced or, “the washing of pots and cups:”? The antecedent in this sentence is the reference to washing cups and bowls and similar things, i.e. the rules of “kaasher”, as I very clearly stated before.

• 
  9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

The topic of this thread is the existence of hell. Since this passage has been offered as support for the nonexistence of hell, where in any O.T. “commandment” is a definition of hell and how did the traditions of the Pharisees reject that commandment?

• 
  10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
  11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
  12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
  13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Once again what is the antecedent of the phrase, “and many such like things do ye.”? Everything the Pharisees practiced or, "If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban,. . .ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;”? So in both cases there is a clear antecedent, the first washing cups and bowls and other similar things, and the second, dedicating property or wealth to the temple and neglecting parents, in violation of the fifth commandment and other similar things. In neither case could it, by the wildest stretch, include a definition of the word hades, sheol, or gehenna, which does not appear in any commandment anywhere.

And let be state once again you have repeatedly refused to address Matt 23:3.

• 
  Matt 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they [scribes and Pharisees, vs. 2] bid (epo) you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

 

[Katya]

Whether this has been said or not, I don't know, but to me, "hell" is just a state of mind.

 

[God of Love]

Originally posted by drmmjr
No harm taken.

Good.  I did not mean intend to sound harsh or condescending, and wanted that clear, as I believe we'd agree we are "Brothers" through the Father.

I your example, you would be God and the dog would be man.

Actually, my example was used to make a point, and was not meant to portray the "human" as the master (God) and the "dog" as the child.  To the contrary. 

Oddly enough, most dog-lovers will know that dogs possess a love (for their master) that humans have difficulty achieving.  A human master can take a dog and beat it, abuse it, starve it, and regardless of what the master does, the dog still (most frequently)loves the master.   Take a human, and subject them to this same treatment, and they will hate.

The love of a dog is (most often) acceptive and unconditional.

Because God created dogs (and their love), it should be evident that God is capable of this type of love and greater.  I believe His love for us is "perfect" and unconditional.   Again, should the dog growl and "threaten" to bite in retaliation, the dog has "conditionalized" at that instant.  The love is no longer perfect, but instead exists upon conditions.

But in our earlier posts, we were speaking of God loving us unconditionally. You love your dog even when it does something wrong, but know that it needs to understand that it did something wrong. Hence the punishment. Spare the rod and spoil the dog. Punishment does not mean a lack of love, in fact it means that there is love.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Yes.  But I believe it's another subject that hasn't been thought completely through. 

In my example of "playing in the street", if one breaks the rule and plays in the street, he/she may suffer the naturally occurring consequences of being hit/killed/maimed.  Thus you have a NATURAL occurence.

If you defy gravity, you may fall.

If you play in the street, you may be hit/kill/maimed.

Consequences are results.  Natural outcomes.  These are not the same as retributions, or punishments.  Outcomes are simply that.  They are what results from the natural application of natural laws.  They are that which occurs quite predictably, as a consequence of that which HAS occurred.

In this, you have a natural balance.  A natural symbiosis, that occurs through God's design of nature. 

"Risk/consequence"

"Action/Reaction".

However, if a parent adds a "punishment" to playing in the street, it has become something more.  It is now:

"Risk/consequence/punishment"

The question you must ask yourself, is "why must the parent add this punishment"?

The answer is: "They add it because of their own FEARS."  They know a "risk/consequence" balance already exists, but the thought of the child playing in the street scares them so badly, they feel compelled to "thwart/threaten/intimidate" the child from entering the street.

By suggesting that God feels a need to "punish" us is suggesting that God is subject to fear.   But how would an all-powerful God feel fear? 

And why do you think that this is "symbolic"? This is the whole reason for Jesus. I'm not sure what can of worms you are speaking of, but I guess that we can get into that later or on another thread.

This is WAY too complicated for us to get into now, but let me provide a loose summary and perhaps we can discuss it at a later time ... probably in the same futile manner.

When God created "Man" (male and female he created THEM), I believe he placed us in a "safe environment" (Eden) and provided man the choice (free will choice) of whether or not Man wanted to experience life in a fuller manner.  This does not, however, dismiss the need for Christ.

Romans 3:23 - For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

1st John 3:9 -- Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Gen 6:9 -- These [are] the generations of Noah: Noah was <b>a just man [and] perfect </b>in his generations, [and] Noah walked with God.

 

[Quote}This has been an interesting discussion.

Agreed.  God Bless.

 

 

[undead1]

I postulate that hell is man in man's natural state, with all worldly comforts, blessings and the goodness of God taken away. Of course, it will all be taken away one day. So then what will be left for unbelievers then, except eternal guilt, craving, grief and regret. Hell then, is the state of eternity that natural man engineered for himself.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by God of Love
In my example of "playing in the street", if one breaks the rule and plays in the street, he/she may suffer the naturally occurring consequences of being hit/killed/maimed.  Thus you have a NATURAL occurence.

If you defy gravity, you may fall.

If you play in the street, you may be hit/kill/maimed.

Consequences are results.  Natural outcomes.  These are not the same as retributions, or punishments.  Outcomes are simply that.  They are what results from the natural application of natural laws.  They are that which occurs quite predictably, as a consequence of that which HAS occurred.

In this, you have a natural balance.  A natural symbiosis, that occurs through God's design of nature. 

"Risk/consequence"

"Action/Reaction".

However, if a parent adds a "punishment" to playing in the street, it has become something more.  It is now:

"Risk/consequence/punishment"

The question you must ask yourself, is "why must the parent add this punishment"?

The answer is: "They add it because of their own FEARS."  They know a "risk/consequence" balance already exists, but the thought of the child playing in the street scares them so badly, they feel compelled to "thwart/threaten/intimidate" the child from entering the street.

By suggesting that God feels a need to "punish" us is suggesting that God is subject to fear.   But how would an all-powerful God feel fear? 

These examples and analogies work well when we are describing things within the realm of human existence. However, God is not bound or controlled by our so-called laws of nature, physics, etc, therefore these rationalizations do not apply to Him.

As far as I know no one here, and certainly not I, has suggested God has a "need" to punish or a "need" to do anything else. The fact that God does punish and will punish is recorded in the Bible and has been amply documented and discussed in this thread.

• 
  Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
  9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[OldShepherd]

Originally posted by undead
I postulate that hell is man in man's natural state, with all worldly comforts, blessings and the goodness of God taken away. Of course, it will all be taken away one day. So then what will be left for unbelievers then, except eternal guilt, craving, grief and regret. Hell then, is the state of eternity that natural man engineered for himself.

Posted by Katya
Whether this has been said or not, I don't know, but to me, "hell" is just a state of mind.

Which completely disregards everything posted to date on this thread. For example, a detailed discussion of the O.T. scriptures describing hell [Here!].

 

[Not Convinced]

Originally posted by drmmjr
Scripturally speaking, hell is the grave. Hell is an English word derived from the Anglo-Saxon word “helan”, which means “to cover” or “to hide out of sight”.

The Old Testament was originally written in the Hebrew language; the New Testament was originally written in the Greek language. In order for the Bible to be read in English, therefore, it was necessary for Bible scholars to translate the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek languages into English.

The English word ‘hell’ was used by these translators to translate Hebrew and Greek words that were originally used by Bible writers to refer to the grave.

The Hebrew word for grave is ‘sheol’. The Greek word for grave is ‘hades’. Old Testament writers, like Moses, Job, David, Solomon, and Isaiah, recorded the fact that dead men are buried in ‘sheol’. New Testament writers, like Matthew, Luke, Paul, and John, taught that the dead are buried in ‘hades’.

Looking at Acts2:27-31 and Psalm 16:10, you can see that ‘sheol’ and ‘hades’ have the same meaning – the grave. Acts 2:27 is a direct quote of Psalm 16:10. In Psalms the word ‘hell’ is translated from the Hebrew word ‘sheol’, and in Acts the word ‘hell’ is translated from the Greek wore ‘hades’. This helps to prove that the two words mean the same thing.

So, yes Hell is the grave according to God's word.

I agree - Hell is the grave. The indiscriminate use of the English word "hell" has promoted a huge amount of mis-understanding.

God Bless,
Not Convinced