Hades Is A Real Place of Torment and Agony

[FineLinen]

I am sure that when you posted this you were thinking of someone else because I have no clue what you are trying to say.

However, First of all I am not a young lady.

2nd, I have a really good handle on the Kings English and there is really nothing I need opened by the Aramaic word.

Yup, you stand is need of nothing!

Laddy is NOT lady

 

[Der Alte]

I am sure that when you posted this you were thinking of someone else because I have no clue what you are trying to say.
However, First of all I am not a young lady.
2nd, I have a really good handle on the Kings English and there is really nothing I need opened by the Aramaic word.

You do err. He called you "young laddy." The diminutive of "lad."

 

[Der Alte]

**

In whose opinion & definition of scholar? Yours? Yet here you are posting your aion/ios theories that are not supported by - anyone - scholar or amateur - in the past thousands of years. Are you a scholar or just a wannabe make believe scholar?

Do you know what a CV-Curriculum Vitae is and can you understand what it means? A CV lists a scholar's education and experience. Does UR high priestess Ramelli show sufficient study in Greek to be considered an expert?

There was only one scholar who authored BDAG, not "scholars".
Dozens of examples of aionios as a finite duration in Koine Greek:

Wrong, showing you don't know what you are talking about! The initials BDAG stand for the series of authors of the lexicon, Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich.
Again you post this patently false claim,"Dozens of examples of aionios as a finite duration in Koine Greek" without providing any evidence whatsoever.
Aionios occurs 70 times in the NT.
Jesus used “aionios” 28 times. He never used it to refer to anything mundane which is not or cannot be “eternal.”
Paul used “aionios” 21 times. It is translated “world” 3 times.
Hebrew-Jude “aionios” occurs 16 times, always translated “eternal.”
“Aionios” occurs 1 time in Rev. “eternal”
The word “aion” occurs 102 times in the NT. It is translated “world” 40 times. 61% of the time it means “eternity.”
“Aion” is said to “end” 8 times.
If you have credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical etc evidence that this is incorrect, provide it or you must concede that I am correct.
Know that LSJ is classical Greek and there were many changes in Koine.
Have you ever attempted a study of the writings of the ECF or know of a UR "scholar" who has?
I have posted a study similar to the one I did in the NT showing how many ECF inadvertently perhaps, defined "aionios" as "eternal.

 

[Major1]

Yup, you stand is need of nothing!

Laddy is NOT lady

Ooops. With the names you address me with, it is not surprising I would misread your post.

 

[FineLinen]

Ooops. With the names you address me with, it is not surprising I would misread your post.

The list is indeed extensive, but much fun with a funny guy!

 

[Major1]

The list is indeed extensive, but much fun with a funny guy!

Lord knows I try but the truth is that you are a hard act to follow.

And thanks for calling me a diminutive "lad"!!!!

 

[FineLinen]

Lord knows I try but the truth is that you are a hard act to follow.

Do not be silly!

And, as I say, I do in fact—and quite intentionally—use very strong language about certain teachings I find abominable.

I will not feign contrition on that score. Nor should I. My characterizations of the teaching of eternal conscious torment are perfectly apt and fair, and they are directed as much at me as at any other Christian.

I know how coarsened our consciences can become when trying to justify to ourselves what we think is required of us by faith and tradition. But, frankly, the burden of proof—and of a certain seemly reticence—falls quite on the other side of the room in this debate.

After all, why should anyone feel the need to apologize for denouncing an idea that looks fairly monstrous from any angle, one whose principal use down the centuries has arguably been the psychological abuse and terrorization of children?

Who, after all, is saying something more objectively atrocious, or more aggressively perverse?

The person who claims that every newborn infant enters the world justly under the threat of eternal dereliction, and that a good God imposes or permits the imposition of a state of eternal agony on finite, created rational beings as part of the mystery of his love or sovereignty or justice?

Or the person who observes that such ideas are cruel and barbarous and depraved?

Which of these two should really be, if not ashamed of his or her words, at least hesitant, ambivalent, and even a little penitent in uttering them?

And which has a better right to moral indignation at what the other has said? And, really, don’t these questions answer themselves?

A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose.

And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous.

It may be the single most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever conceived, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible.

And anyone who thinks that such claims are too strong or caustic, while at the same time finding the traditional notion of a hell of everlasting suffering perfectly unobjectionable, needs to consider whether he or she is really thinking clearly about it at all. If anything, my rhetoric in the book may have been far, far too mild. -David B. Hart-

 

[Der Alte]

***

Do not be silly!

And, as I say, I do in fact—and quite intentionally—use very strong language about certain teachings I find abominable.

I will not feign contrition on that score. Nor should I. My characterizations of the teaching of eternal conscious torment are perfectly apt and fair, and they are directed as much at me as at any other Christian.

I know how coarsened our consciences can become when trying to justify to ourselves what we think is required of us by faith and tradition. But, frankly, the burden of proof—and of a certain seemly reticence—falls quite on the other side of the room in this debate.

After all, why should anyone feel the need to apologize for denouncing an idea that looks fairly monstrous from any angle, one whose principal use down the centuries has arguably been the psychological abuse and terrorization of children?

Who, after all, is saying something more objectively atrocious, or more aggressively perverse?

The person who claims that every newborn infant enters the world justly under the threat of eternal dereliction, and that a good God imposes or permits the imposition of a state of eternal agony on finite, created rational beings as part of the mystery of his love or sovereignty or justice?

Or the person who observes that such ideas are cruel and barbarous and depraved?

Which of these two should really be, if not ashamed of his or her words, at least hesitant, ambivalent, and even a little penitent in uttering them?

And which has a better right to moral indignation at what the other has said? And, really, don’t these questions answer themselves?

A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose.

And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous.

It may be the single most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever conceived, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible.

And anyone who thinks that such claims are too strong or caustic, while at the same time finding the traditional notion of a hell of everlasting suffering perfectly unobjectionable, needs to consider whether he or she is really thinking clearly about it at all. If anything, my rhetoric in the book may have been far, far too mild. -David B. Hart-

David Hart "Theological Fraud."
Theological Fraud | Michael Pakaluk

 

[Major1]

Do not be silly!

And, as I say, I do in fact—and quite intentionally—use very strong language about certain teachings I find abominable.

I will not feign contrition on that score. Nor should I. My characterizations of the teaching of eternal conscious torment are perfectly apt and fair, and they are directed as much at me as at any other Christian.

I know how coarsened our consciences can become when trying to justify to ourselves what we think is required of us by faith and tradition. But, frankly, the burden of proof—and of a certain seemly reticence—falls quite on the other side of the room in this debate.

After all, why should anyone feel the need to apologize for denouncing an idea that looks fairly monstrous from any angle, one whose principal use down the centuries has arguably been the psychological abuse and terrorization of children?

Who, after all, is saying something more objectively atrocious, or more aggressively perverse?

The person who claims that every newborn infant enters the world justly under the threat of eternal dereliction, and that a good God imposes or permits the imposition of a state of eternal agony on finite, created rational beings as part of the mystery of his love or sovereignty or justice?

Or the person who observes that such ideas are cruel and barbarous and depraved?

Which of these two should really be, if not ashamed of his or her words, at least hesitant, ambivalent, and even a little penitent in uttering them?

And which has a better right to moral indignation at what the other has said? And, really, don’t these questions answer themselves?

A belief does not merit unconditional reverence just because it is old, nor should it be immune to being challenged in terms commensurate to the scandal it seems to pose.

And the belief that a God of infinite intellect, justice, love, and power would condemn rational beings to a state of perpetual torment, or would allow them to condemn themselves on account of their own delusion, pain, and anger, is probably worse than merely scandalous.

It may be the single most horrid notion the religious imagination has ever conceived, and the most irrational and spiritually corrosive picture of existence possible.

And anyone who thinks that such claims are too strong or caustic, while at the same time finding the traditional notion of a hell of everlasting suffering perfectly unobjectionable, needs to consider whether he or she is really thinking clearly about it at all. If anything, my rhetoric in the book may have been far, far too mild. -David B. Hart-

Why would any one who disagrees with your Universalism false teaching care one little bit about what David Hart says?????

 

[Der Alte]

Why would any one who disagrees with your Universalism false teaching care one little bit about what David Hart says?????

Especially when David Hart's pro-UR book, quoted above, has been shown to be fraudulent.

 

[FineLinen]

Why would any one who disagrees with your Universalism false teaching care one little bit about what David Hart says?????

Yup:

Our "false teaching" of the Master of reconciliation actually being the Author & Finisher of what He has begun is repulsive?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Why would any one who disagrees with your Universalism false teaching care one little bit about what David Hart says?????

Can I ask why you accept the notion of a deity who you believe consigns most ppl to hideous eternal torment if they don't accept Jesus?

Doesn't the implied blackmail ultimatum (accept me or I'll torture you forever) disgust you?

 

[FineLinen]

Can I ask why you accept the notion of a deity who you believe consigns most ppl to hideous eternal torment if they don't accept Jesus?

Doesn't the implied blackmail ultimatum (accept me or I'll torture you forever) disgust you?

My brother Ben: It is impossible for me to conceive of any father of calibre moving in such atrocious behaviour!

To ascribe such a hideous thing to the Father of all fathers is beyond the pale!

Our Fathers Name is Abba (dearest Daddy) ! ! !

 

[Der Alte]

Can I ask why you accept the notion of a deity who you believe consigns most ppl to hideous eternal torment if they don't accept Jesus?
Doesn't the implied blackmail ultimatum (accept me or I'll torture you forever) disgust you?

God's world/universe, God's rules. Not the fickle opinions of mankind.
…..Greek is now, and has always been, the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who, better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the “literal” Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of Greek words, e.g. “Gehenna,””aiōnios” and “kolasis?”
…..In the EOB, footnote pg. 180

Hades is the realm of the dead. The upper part of hades was considered to be luminous and it was called “paradise” or "Abraham's bosom.” Hades is not to be confused with hell (Gehenna) which is the final place of state or place of the damned (“the lake of’ fire”).​

= = = = = = = = = =

The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96
Matthew 25:46 Then he will answer them saying ‘Amen. I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' “These [[ones on the left]] will go away into eternal punishment.[κολασιν αιονιον/kolasin aiōnion] but the righteous into eternal life.
= = = = = = = = = =
KJV Romans 16:26 [EOB 14:25]
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting [αιωνιου/aiōniou] God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:​

In the EOB Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, uses αιωνιου/aiōniou, in Rom 16:26 synonymous with αιδιος/aidios in Rom 1:20, below.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world, his invisible things are clearly seen. They perceived through created things, even his everlasting [τε αιδιος/te aidios] power and divinity.
= = = = = = = =
https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/books/or...tament-(The-Eastern-Greek-Orthodox-Bible).pdf
The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible EOB—New Testament 96 can be D/L at the link above. If anyone has doubts/questions about the EOB version I suggest they read the 200 page preface which documents the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.

​

 

[Major1]

Can I ask why you accept the notion of a deity who you believe consigns most ppl to hideous eternal torment if they don't accept Jesus?

Doesn't the implied blackmail ultimatum (accept me or I'll torture you forever) disgust you?

You certainly may and thank you for asking. That says a lot!

I accept it because that is exactly what The Word of God says. NO OTHER reason what so ever. Now....do I like the idea.....NO, Who in their right mind would like it? In fact I hate the idea but I was not asked about it.

Does it disgust me you asked. I don't think disgust is the right word.

Bothered, broken hearted over the ones I know and love who are going there, YES!

God gives ALL men the freedom of Choice as to where they want to spend eternity. Heaven and Hell are choices.

Heaven is kind of like going to Disney World. When you get to the gate you must have a ticket. No ticket no entrance. Does Disney allow you to enter because you just want to play and have fun? Jesus is the ticket that allow all who receive Him to enter heaven.

What then must a man do to get into hell? NOTHIN whatsoever. ALL men who stay in their sin and reject God are making the choice for hell.

Now the bottom line after all the talk comes down to this...….
IT is what it is and the only way to make it go away is to totally reject the Word of God.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

n fact I hate the idea but I was not asked about it.

Does it disgust me you asked. I don't think disgust is the right word.

Bothered, broken hearted over the ones I know and love who are going there, YES!

So you don't find it morally repugnant that God (as you see Him) tortures ppl forever for not choosing Him? Even regardless of whether that's the young rape-murder victim or the stone-cold mob killer?

Do you have any issue with Him telling us to forgive endlessly, but His mercy running out all of a sudden? Doesn't strike you as despicably hypocritical, just a little?

Heaven is kind of like going to Disney World. When you get to the gate you must have a ticket. No ticket no entrance. Does Disney allow you to enter because you just want to play and have fun? Jesus is the ticket that allow all who receive Him to enter heaven.

What then must a man do to get into hell? NOTHIN whatsoever. ALL men who stay in their sin and reject God are making the choice for hell.

So you don't think the scriptures teach Jesus saves ppl from hell? Even if they've got there simply by being lost and blinded by the devil, tricked into selling their souls down at the crossroads?

 

[FineLinen]

You certainly may and thank you for asking. That says a lot!

I accept it because that is exactly what The Word of God says. NO OTHER reason what so ever. Now....do I like the idea.....NO, Who in their right mind would like it? In fact I hate the idea but I was not asked about it.

Does it disgust me you asked. I don't think disgust is the right word.

Bothered, broken hearted over the ones I know and love who are going there, YES!

God gives ALL men the freedom of Choice as to where they want to spend eternity. Heaven and Hell are choices.

Heaven is kind of like going to Disney World. When you get to the gate you must have a ticket. No ticket no entrance. Does Disney allow you to enter because you just want to play and have fun? Jesus is the ticket that allow all who receive Him to enter heaven.

What then must a man do to get into hell? NOTHIN whatsoever. ALL men who stay in their sin and reject God are making the choice for hell.

Now the bottom line after all the talk comes down to this...….
IT is what it is and the only way to make it go away is to totally reject the Word of God.

Nonsense ! ! !

I could add a few more, but alas, you my friend must be awakened to the Christ of ephphatha.

The Word of God declares the ta pavnte shall find their ending IN/EN Him.

The Word of God declares every being in every dimension of Abba's world shall worship Him IN union with His Name.

The Word of God declares the whole creation has been made prisoners of futility "NOT WILLINGLY", and goes further to declare our God has made it so (by reason of Him).

Perhaps one glad day you will awaken to why ?

 

[Der Alte]

So you don't find it morally repugnant that God (as you see Him) tortures ppl forever for not choosing Him? Even regardless of whether that's the young rape-murder victim or the stone-cold mob killer?
Do you have any issue with Him telling us to forgive endlessly, but His mercy running out all of a sudden? Doesn't strike you as despicably hypocritical, just a little?
So you don't think the scriptures teach Jesus saves ppl from hell? Even if they've got there simply by being lost and blinded by the devil, tricked into selling their souls down at the crossroads?

Do you have any scripture which states clearly and unequivocally that Jesus saves people from hell?

Romans 1:24
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:26
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:28
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Psalms 81:11-12
11 But my people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me.
12 So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels.​

 

[Major1]

Nonsense ! ! !

I could add a few more, but alas, you my friend must be awakened to the Christ of ephphatha.

The Word of God declares the ta pavnte shall find their ending IN/EN Him.

The Word of God declares every being in every dimension of Abba's world shall worship Him IN union with His Name.

The Word of God declares the whole creation has been made prisoners of futility "NOT WILLINGLY", and goes further to declare our God has made it so (by reason of Him).

Perhaps one glad day you will awaken to why ?

I have asked YOU and all the other Universalists to post the Scriptures that say...........

"THOSE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE WILL ACCEPT CHRIST AND BE SAVED AND REMOVED FROM THE LAKE OF FIRES INCLUDING SATAN AND HIS DEMONS"

Instead of all this discussion, simply post the Scriptures that say what I just asked you.

 

[FineLinen]

I have asked YOU and all the other Universalists to post the Scriptures that say...........

"THOSE IN THE LAKE OF FIRE WILL ACCEPT CHRIST AND BE SAVED AND REMOVED FROM THE LAKE OF FIRES INCLUDING SATAN AND HIS DEMONS"

Instead of all this discussion, simply post the Scriptures that say what I just asked you.

Major: There is no Scripture that will answer what you ask.

There is also no Scripture that declares our God whose essence is FIRE, (Consuming Pur), and in whose glorious Presence the ta pavnte will dwell, loses anything!

God IS the Source, Guide & Goal of the all.