For all that fear hell

[mkgal1]

Does the position of that commentary lie in a full or part preterist point of view?

In reading more....it seems that particular commentary is from a partial preterist view (I don't agree with all that's written there).

 

[ToBeLoved]

One thing I don't like about these discussions is how tossing Scripture back and forth diminishes the original intent and message of the text.

"Depart from me" doesn't have to mean God isn't in a place. It doesn't have to be a literal physical leaving. In fact....this was a parable that Jesus spoke, so it has spiritual meaning. It's not meant to be taken as a literal description of what's to come (I mean...it's goats and sheep, for one example).

I think this passage has been overshadowed by the theology of "you're going to heaven and you're not"....but it seems to me that the actual message Jesus was trying to make is what He considers as "righteous" and what He detests. All through His ministry He seems to be trying to undo the damage done by the pious religious leaders of the time. Jesus is turning the standards upside down. Those who thought they were pious, Jesus is calling "workers of iniquity" and those that thought the door of righteousness was shut on them (mostly because their economic situation disallowed them to worship the way that was considered "righteous") were, by Jesus, called righteous.

Why is so much of this passage taken literally (the "depart from me" part)....but the standard is dismissed in the interpretation (caring for others ....especially the "least of these")?

--------->Like any of the parables, this story must be read in the context of the first listeners. The shocking end of the parables of the kingdom is that those that thought they were getting into the kingdom are not going to be there, and those that were on the outside do get in. The ruling Jews thought that they were going to be in the kingdom, in fact, they were the “keepers of the kingdom of God.” Yet when Messiah came, they did not recognize him. They never really had much of a chance to since they were not caring for the poor and the needy as they ought. Jesus is very critical of the Pharisees who liked their fine things, or the people giving in the temple and mocking the widow and her mites.

On the other hand, the underclass probably did not think of themselves are serious candidates for the first to get into the kingdom. They were told repeatedly that they were the unclean, “sinners and tax-collectors.” Yet they will enter the kingdom, and those that were accepting and caring for this underclass, as Jesus was, will enter as well. Jesus demonstrated throughout his ministry this kind of grace by eating with sinners, now he is welcoming people into his kingdom who showed the same grace to other “least of these brothers.”~Matthew 25:31-46 – The Sheep and the Goats

....and remember, His Kingdom is current....not a far off hope in the future:

Pharisees asked Jesus when God’s kingdom was coming. He replied, “God’s kingdom isn’t coming with signs that are easily noticed. 21 Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ Don’t you see? God’s kingdom is already among you.”~Luke 17:20-21​

If God 'can' or 'could have' co-resided with sin and evil, then we never would have been separated from God because of sin, nor would Jesus have to have been perfect.

 

[mkgal1]

If God 'can' or 'could have' co-resided with sin and evil, then we never would have been separated from God because of sin, nor would Jesus have to have been perfect.

You don't believe God is omnipresent? Do you believe He's confined to our hearts and to heaven.....or what?

I see "separated" to be like how a husband and wife can be separated yet sitting beside each other at their adult child's wedding.

 

[mkgal1]

Another thought: What about Jesus? Do you not believe He is God? Did He not "reside" with sinners?

 

[mkgal1]

Since there seems to be confusion about the theology of omnipresence:

-------->God is everywhere
The omnipresence of God is one of the divine attributes of the Creator particularly stressed in Church teachings. Loving the whole of his good creation, God dwells within the world that he has made because of his goodness and love for man. This is not to say that God "is" his creation, for he is more than that, God is above and outside his creation, yet he also exists within it.

We don't know God by his essence and nature, but his energies come down to us. God's energies, which are God himself, permeate all his creation, and we experience them in the form of deifying grace and divine light. Truly our God is a God who acts in history, intervening directly in concrete situations.~God - OrthodoxWiki

 

[mkgal1]

No, this is a picture of the Great White Throne Judgment where those who have not accepted Christ as Saviour will be punished for there disobedience of not believing.

Goats = stubborn people
Sheep = those who submit.
And He is foretelling how people will be separated.

Regardless of when this is....the one thing that is clear is that the requirement for inheriting the kingdom is different than what you're citing. This is what the text says:


The Judgement of the Nations
31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37 Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,you did it to me.” 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” 45 Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”~Matthew 25:31-46


Now.....what is it that the one group did that the other did not? Do you see anything in there about believing/not believing? That *should* be the take-home message (what sets those groups apart from one another)....but somehow that gets lost most of the time (I even mentioned that earlier, in post #83).

 

[ToBeLoved]

You don't believe God is omnipresent? Do you believe He's confined to our hearts and to heaven.....or what?

I see "separated" to be like how a husband and wife can be separated yet sitting beside each other at their adult child's wedding.

How is being Omnipresent co-abiding with evil?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Regardless of when this is....the one thing that is clear is that the requirement for inheriting the kingdom is different than what you're citing. This is what the text says:


The Judgement of the Nations
31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37 Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,you did it to me.” 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” 45 Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”~Matthew 25:31-46


Now.....what is it that the one group did that the other did not? Do you see anything in there about believing/not believing? That *should* be the take-home message....but somehow that gets lost most of the time (I even mentioned that earlier, in post #83).

It sounds like you are preaching universalism

 

[mkgal1]

How is being Omnipresent co-abiding with evil?

Well....let me back-track and reiterate what's been posted.

I had originally posted:

"Depart from me" doesn't have to mean God isn't in a place. It doesn't have to be a literal physical leaving.

....and you responded with:

If God 'can' or 'could have' co-resided with sin and evil, then we never would have been separated from God because of sin, nor would Jesus have to have been perfect.

Where is God right now? Aren't we sinners? If for some reason you believe as Christians we aren't.....then what about evil that we KNOW is in this world? What about Jesus? Wasn't He God enfleshed? Wasn't He "co-residing" with evil on this earth?​

 

[mkgal1]

It sounds like you are preaching universalism

First of all, I'm not "preaching".

Secondly, all I had done in the post you quoted (#106) was quote Scripture. If you interpret that as universalism then..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What stood out to you in that biblical text as universalism?

ETA....I did also ask what the difference is between the two groups in the biblical text. So I guess I did do a bit more than quote Scripture, to be totally sincere.

 

[Hillsage]

If God 'can' or 'could have' co-resided with sin and evil, then we never would have been separated from God because of sin, nor would Jesus have to have been perfect.

Deleted. Still playing 'catch up' and I see that mkgal1 already pointed out the obvious fallacy of your post.

 

[Hillsage]

First of all, I'm not "preaching".

Secondly, all I had done in the post you quoted (#106) was quote Scripture. If you interpret that as universalism then..... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Personally, as I've aged, I can honestly say I see UR as one of more important doctrines to preach. Because it is the one that counters the most malignant 'initial picture' of God to be painted by the adversary . Of all the "precepts and commandments of men" which scripture warns of, UR is simply the doctrine that is counter to the God image that later dominated the initial church's thinking. But 'that image' came from the hearts of men at a time when the already dividing church was at a pinacle of spiritual deception as well as political and religious corruption.

'Basic' salvation errors, which the nominal church still can't even agree on either, would still be the very first 'divisive doctrinal error' of the Adversary IMO.

A God worse than Hitler and a church with more heads than mythological Greek Gods. Two big wins for "the god of this world".

ETA....I did also ask what the difference is between the two groups in the biblical text. So I guess I did do a bit more than quote Scripture, to be totally sincere.

I thought you nailed this point personally.

 

[mkgal1]

I can honestly say I see UR as one of more important doctrines to preach. Because it is the one that counters the most malignant 'initial picture' of God to be painted by the adversary .

I'm sure you know I agree. I found it interesting that what ToBeLoved had quoted when she wrote, "it sounds like you are preaching universalism" wasn't my interpretation of anything, but a direct quote from the Bible ( words of Jesus!).

It's such an important point you're making that this picture of god is painted by the adversary. If he can get us to believe that God doesn't really love us, he steals away Truth. If we can't identify evil and righteousness when we see it (and merely rely on tiles that are usually self-professed)...then we're going to be lost and deceived.

What separates a genuine love from a toxic "love" (I really like your word, "malignant") is the loss of freedom. IOW....in order for love to be true....it HAS to be freely chosen. That's key. To illustrate what I mean: look at the Islamist terrorists. They threaten horrific violence and terror towards those that don't believe exactly as they do. That sure seems to be the exact portrayal many have made their god out to be. That form of toxic conformity is what gave us the years of horrific religious persecution (from the hands of the church). If one believes god threatens us with eternal conscious torment (or annihilation) for not "believing".....how is that any different than the Islamist terrorist or the Roman religious leaders that beheaded the disciple, James?

What about how the disciple Andrew was murdered? If one holds to an image of god that tortures souls for not conforming to their demands, it's no surprise religious leaders could treat Jesus' disciples and early Christians this way and still spread that sort of religion (for centuries!):

---->Andrew: According to 15th Century religious historian Dorman Newman, Andrew—the brother of Peter—went to Patras in western Greece in 69 AD, where the Roman proconsul Aegeates debated religion with him. Aegeates tried to convince Andrew to forsake Christianity, so that he would not have to torture and execute him. But when that didn’t work, apparently he decided to give Andrew the full treatment. Andrew was scourged, and then tied rather than nailed to a cross, so that he would suffer for a longer time before dying. Andrew lived for two days, during which he preached to passersby.~How Did the Apostles Die?


"He punishes us because He loves us"? And this is supposed to be love? Do people not see the twisted distortion in that?!

That's completely different than what Jesus taught us (which I keep having to point out: how we treat others, especially those in the margins...those that can't pay back our kindness with anything other than kindness....is directly equivalent to what we do to Christ). This sort of faith is what encourages a universal compassion (that has the power to transform).

Jesus made His instruction to us clear and simple: Love God/Love Others (and people still complicate it and/or make it into something else all together different).

As Christians we are to "imitate Jesus"...."walk like Jesus"....people are supposed to recognize us by how we love one another. Look at how the enemies of the early church acted. Hold that up as an example and contrast that with what we know about Jesus. Does this portrayal of a god that tortures His creation under the threat to "conform or else" more resemble the early church enemies.....or the Jesus we read about in the Bible? Clearly they are not the same (well....at least that's clear to me).

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.~Colossians 1:15

 

[Doug Melven]

We're not suggesting that. I have posted several times that "hell" wasn't even a word when the Bible was written (and Hillsage posted about how translations have changed and dialed back the use of "hell" when it obviously didn't belong).
There're 3 words that have been rendered as "hell" (and that's actually the main issue)....the original words should have remained.

In that case it would be a good idea not to rely on translations at all to determine what we believe and I don't.
But, I don't read Hebrew or Greek. So, whenever I have a question I search my interlinear for the correct word.
Hades and Gehenna are not the same place.
Hades = Grave or "Place of the dead"
Gehenna = "Hell" or where people will be eternally tormented in flame.
See post 97 for a better explanation of Gehenna.

See my previous post. At the end of the Jewish age (He's said to be coming in His glory). And that's my point.....I don't believe we even *have* different [eventual] destinies. He is going to--in my belief--reconcile ALL things to Him (as it's written in Colossians 1:20).

According to what Paul said in 2 Corinthians this is already done. And then in verse 19 he committed the word of reconciliation to us, and tells people they need to be reconciled to God.
5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Correct HADES is right. So where did HELL come from? Hades is, always was 'the grave', period. Even today in New England at 'planting' time they say; "Well it's time to HELL the potatoes." Stupid definition, but correct application....dig a hole, throw it in, cover it up.

So you think "hell" means "grave"?
Only when the Greek word is "Hades". Not with Gehenna. As in these verses.
Matthew 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

That's the problem with you guys, Jesus never said HELL, don't you get it? Jesus did say Gehenna, but what was Gehenna? It certainly wasn't the HELL you guys believe in.

How do you come to that conclusion?
Jesus described it as a place of torment in Mark.
9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Or don't you think that will be a place of torment?

Regardless of when this is....the one thing that is clear is that the requirement for inheriting the kingdom is different than what you're citing. This is what the text says:

If you look at the text in Matthew 25:31-46 you will see that the Blessed did certain things.
Doing those things did not make them blessed, but because they were blessed they did those things.
The ones who were cursed did evil things because they were cursed, doing evil things did not make them cursed.
Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
That verse says it best. We didn't sin to become sinners, Adam made us so.
But when we repented, we were made righteous and became blessed.

 

[mkgal1]

In that case it would be a good idea not to rely on translations at all to determine what we believe and I don't.
But, I don't read Hebrew or Greek. So, whenever I have a question I search my interlinear for the correct word.

Absolutely agree. That's my policy as well (and what I've been suggesting all along--don't rely on translations). I'm with you on that much.

Hades and Gehenna are not the same place.
Hades = Grave or "Place of the dead"
Gehenna = "Hell" or where people will be eternally tormented in flame.

Nope.....that's not where I can agree. I do agree that Hades and Gehenna do not mean the same thing.......but Gehenna is another name for the Hinnom Valley.
----->The Greek word from which we get the (mistranslated) English word "hell" in the KJV version of Matthew 5:22 is Gehenna(Strong's Concordance #G1067). This word means "valley of Hinnom" according to Strong's and Thayer's Greek Definitions. There are also other New Testament locations where the King James erroneously uses the word Hell instead of a direct reference to the valley (Matthew 5:29, 30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 33, Mark 9:43, 45, 47, Luke 12:5).

The first two places where "hell" (the Hinnom Valley) occurs in Scripture are as the boundary between the land inherited by the tribes of Benjamin and Judah (Joshua 15:8, 18:16).

Anciently, the valley was one of the places where the idolatrous Israelites worshipped the pagan gods Moloch (Molech) and Baal using, among other things, fire (the fire of "hell" or gehenna). Many of the kings of Judah and Israel personally endorsed such worship. In fact, Judah's King Ahaz (whose rule began in 735 B.C.) not only made idols, he sacrificed his own sons in the valley by having them BURNED and offered as a pagan burnt offering (2Chronicles 28:1 - 3)!

So you think "hell" means "grave"?
Only when the Greek word is "Hades"

There was no word "hell" in Jesus day.....so you seem to be getting it reversed. "Hell" didn't come first.....grave did.....Hades and Sheol did. You seem to want to keep working the use of that word back in...but it didn't exist.

"Hell" (a modern word) comes from "hel" derived from Germanic (from Proto-Germanic *halija) "one who covers up or hides something". Unseen.

Another source states: The word hell is of Saxon origin, being derived from the word helan, which has also been spelled hele, helle, hell, and heile. In its original form, it simply meant "to cover, conceal, and hide." Thus, the expression "to hele over a matter" meant "to cover it." Another Saxon derivation is the word holl, which refers to a cavern or to the unseen place of the dead, which, in turn, has led some commentators to state that the word hell refers to "hole," which means "grave."

Like Hillsage mentioned, there's a term "hell potatoes" (i.e. dig a hole and cover them).

How do you come to that conclusion?
Jesus described it as a place of torment in Mark.
9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
9:46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
9:48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Or don't you think that will be a place of torment?

And what were the original Greek words used? Remember......there was no "hell" then. And what was the full context?

If you look at the text in Matthew 25:31-46 you will see that the Blessed did certain things.
Doing those things did not make them blessed, but because they were blessed they did those things.
The ones who were cursed did evil things because they were cursed, doing evil things did not make them cursed.

Ooooooh so *that's* how you spin that. You still can't dismiss the fact that (if you want to use that logic)...."evil things" are going to have to mean "not feeding the hungry; not clothing the naked; not giving drink to the thirsty, etc" and how you treated the "least of these" is directly how you treat God.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
That verse says it best. We didn't sin to become sinners, Adam made us so.
But when we repented, we were made righteous and became blessed.

Hmmm.....that's an interesting way to look at that verse.

So......we are "guilty" by no agency ...no choice ...no fault of our own.....we inherit the guilt, but then we have to DO something....respond a certain way to get out of that? Adam made us guilty.....but Christ punishes us for not believing He made us righteous? I read that differently.

I read it as being equivalent. Adam brought guilt (one man's disobedience)---->Christ brought righteousness (one man's obedience).

If it's dependent on OUR obedience...isn't that more than ONE man's obedience?

 

[mkgal1]

Jesus described it as a place of torment in Mark.

If we could, I'd love to sort of park on this passage for a while.

To put it into better context.....let's go back a bit.

Jesus is fortelling of His death & resurrection.

--->He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. 36 For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? 37 Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? 38 Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’~Mark 8:34-37

And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’~Mark 9:1



**********
So.....what is Jesus suggesting about the timeline of when the kingdom of God will "come with power"? Can you answer that for me, please?

 

[Doug Melven]

Nope.....that's not where I can agree. I do agree that Hades and Gehenna do not mean the same thing.......but Gehenna is another name for the Hinnom Valley.

A place associated with fire.

There was no word "hell" in Jesus day.....so you seem to be getting it reversed. "Hell" didn't come first.....grave did.....Hades and Sheol did. You seem to want to keep working the use of that word back in...but it didn't exist.

Jesus didn't say "Grave" either. That is an English word.
In fact, Jesus didn't even speak English at that time as it didn't come into existence for about 500 years later.
Sheol = Hebrew
Hades = Greek
Gehenna = Greek
Hell = English
Grave = English
Your argument that Jesus didn't use the word "hell" is nonsense.

So......we are "guilty" by no agency ...no choice ...no fault of our own.....we inherit the guilt, but then we have to DO something....respond a certain way to get out of that? Adam made us guilty.....but Christ punishes us for not believing He made us righteous? I read that differently.

I read it as being equivalent. Adam brought guilt (one man's disobedience)---->Christ brought righteousness (one man's obedience).

If it's dependent on OUR obedience...isn't that more than ONE man's obedience?

It is dependent on our obedience to believe.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in should not perish but have eternal life.
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

It can't be clearer than that.

 

[mkgal1]

A place associated with fire.

Hinnom Valley/Gehenna was associated with much more than that.

It was also outside the city gates (symbolizing exclusion....isolation). It was a place of evil....and where especially vile criminal's dead bodies were thrown (those denied an honorable burial). I'd honestly recommend reading about it. It's eye-opening. I think Blue Letter Bible has interesting facts about the actual geographical place:

------>"Gehenna." This word is used twelve times in the New Testament with Jesus employing it eleven times. Gehenna is derived from the Hebrew ge hinnom or the "valley of Hinnom." Hinnom was probably the name of a person in ancient Israel. The valley of Hinnom is a deep narrow glen just outside of Jerusalem. It was also called Tophet, or the valley of dead bones. Jeremiah wrote.

In Old Testament times this had been the scene of the practice of child-sacrifice under some of the godless kings of Israel. The prophet Jeremiah wrote.

And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, nor did it come into My heart (Jeremiah 7:31).

Abominations Stopped By Josiah

During the reign of Josiah the sacrifices were stopped.

And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire to Molech (2 Kings 23:10).

Place Of Burning Refuse

The valley became the dumping ground for the sewage and refuse of the city. It was a place of crawling worms and maggots. By defiling this place with refuse, Josiah stopped the child sacrifices. Fires burned continually to destroy the garbage and impurities. Hence the name Gehenna came to be used as a symbol of punishment. The prophet Isaiah wrote:

And they shall go forth and look upon the corpses of the ones who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, and their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh (Isaiah 66:24).~
What Is Gehenna?

Jesus didn't say "Grave" either. That is an English word.
In fact, Jesus didn't even speak English at that time as it didn't come into existence for about 500 years later.
Sheol = Hebrew
Hades = Greek
Gehenna = Greek
Hell = English
Grave = English
Your argument that Jesus didn't use the word "hell" is nonsense.

I never suggested that Jesus said "grave". I thought we'd agreed that we'd be looking at the original Greek words used? Why is my argument that Jesus didn't use the word "hell" nonsense? Didn't you just agree that's true and post it yourself? Isn't that what you're even saying right here--emphasizing that Jesus didn't speak English?

It is dependent on our obedience to believe.

Just pointing out that's not what that passage says in Romans 5:19

 

[Ron Gurley]

The Bible uses several words that are translated into one idea: "an eternal spiritual realm separated forever and ever from God, angels, and saved believers aka the eternal spiritual heavenly realm"

Revelation 20:10...fate of the unholy 3
And the devil (satan/dragon/serpent/ etc) who deceived them was thrown into the "lake of fire" and brimstone, where the beast (anti-christ) and the false prophet (anti-spirit) are also;
and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever..

...>Fate of unbelievers<...
Revelation 20:15
And if anyone’s name was not found written in the (Lamb's) "book of life", he was thrown into the "lake of fire".

The eternal spiritual realm of the "lake of fire" was created to separate those who reject God from those immortal spirits who accept him.

1 Chronicles 28:9
“As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. (spirit)
If you seek Him, He will let you find Him;
but
if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

 

[mkgal1]

According to what Paul said in 2 Corinthians this is already done. And then in verse 19 he committed the word of reconciliation to us, and tells people they need to be reconciled to God.
5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Wait a minute. How can ALL be reconciled to Christ....but the followers of Christ were urged--in this very passage you quoted--to "be reconciled to God"? They were still "contending for the faith"....as we also should be "urged on by love":

For the love of Christ urges us on, because we are convinced that one has died for all; therefore all have died. 15 And he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them~2 Corinthians 5:14

​

When I imagine "all reconciled to Christ".....I imagine all back to the way God created things to be. Back to where things were ALL "very good". No death....no more tears....no fear in animals for fear of being prey.....

He will wipe every tear from their eyes, and there will be no more death or sorrow or crying or pain. All these things are gone forever."And the one sitting on the throne said, "Look, I am making everything new!" And then he said to me, "Write this down, for what I tell you is trustworthy and true."~Revelation 21:4-5



The wolf shall dwell with the lamb,

and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat,

and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together;

and a little child shall lead them~Isaiah 11:6

​

....that's what will be once there's the second death--where death and Hades are tossed into the Lake of Fire (in our belief). There can't be "new" until the old is gone forever (sin, death, evil, sorrow, pain, fear, disbelief...etc).
​