Hell fire!

[revrobor]

All true. Gehenna is the place where human sacrifices were made to Moloch by the pagans. Being cast into Gehenna is to be killed in gehenna. Not tortured alive. The sacrifices in Gehenna were not kept alive.
What does fire do to things? Torture them or burn them up?

Now back to Romans 6:23

True or false?

You are so far afield that I'm not going to be sucked into this ridiculous discussion any more. You know as well as I that "death" as used in this case is a comparative word that was used to help people see the difference between the consequences of rejecting God's plan of salvation and "eternal life". After the Gospel had been preached for awhile the actual term of "hell" was used when people began thinking rejection of the Gospel didn't bring much in the way of consequences. Other than atheists, who deny everything the Bible teaches, you are the only person I have ever met who denies the obvious teaching of the Bible.

 

[Timothew]

You know as well as I that "death" as used in this case is a comparative word . . .

Now who is applying their own interpretation? Death doesn't even mean death.

Now John 3:16,
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whoever believes in him will not perish but will have eternal life.

Is this true or is it just my "interpretation"? Is the way the avoid perishing to believe in God's Son, Jesus Christ? or is this the way to avoid hell?

 

[Timothew]

You are so far afield . . .

Other than atheists, who deny everything the Bible teaches, you are the only person I have ever met who denies the obvious teaching of the Bible.

No, All I did was quote what the bible actually said.
The wages of sin is death.
Shall not perish.
This is the second death.
The soul that sins shall die.

You are the one denying what the bible teaches.

 

[StevenL]

I've learned that it's futile to argue with anyone who is already deceived into believing he or she is "reverend". There's no breaking through it. They've been assimilated. The present "heaven or hell" orthodoxy is a ridiculously unscriptural platfom. More lies are told by "reverends" at a funeral than by politicians before election day. All in the name of the "truth" of course. But it will all be disclosed in due time.

 

[Kutte]

I've learned that it's futile to argue with anyone who is already deceived into believing he or she is "reverend". There's no breaking through it. They've been assimilated. The present "heaven or hell" orthodoxy is a ridiculously unscriptural platfom. More lies are told by "reverends" at a funeral than by politicians before election day. All in the name of the "truth" of course. But it will all be disclosed in due time.

Well, there are some people who are so deeply engaged in scriptures that they no longer can think straight.

Kutte

________________________________________________________________

Why AM I when there could have been no I AM?

 

[mom2025]

Honestly, I don't think we CAN know what either one will be like. Our mortal minds are not capable of understanding all the things God has made. We don't know everything about the natural world, so why would know know everything about spiritual things?

I don't think it's wrong to guess about it, but in the end I don't think we'll know either way until our time comes.

 

[tackattack]

Are you sure that is how you want to say that, as a christian?

But my answer to you is yes, I have read Rev 21. I've also read the part of Rev 21 where John tells us what he means by the lake of fire, "This is the second death". Note that John says the lake of fire is the second death, not eternal torment in fire. Now, have you read Paul's Letters? In Romans 6:23, Paul says the same thing. "The wages of sin is death". Death is not eternal torment. Paul doesn't say that the wages of sin is eternal torment in hell.

Have you read the gospels? I recommend that you read the Gospel of John first. In John 3:16, it says that whoever believes in him (Jesus) will not perish, but will have eternal life. Perish means die. Notice that John did not write that whoever believes in Jesus will not be tortured in fiery hell, but will go to heaven. The choices Jesus sets forth and John records are eternal life or perishing.

Have you read the old testament? Ezekiel 18:20 says that the soul that sins will die. Ezekiel doesn't say that the soul that sins will be tortured in fiery hell.

You say that it is apparent that I haven't read my bible. If you have read your bible, how could you have missed these passages?

I've completely agreed with this most of my adult life. That's not to say we cease to exist at death, but that Hell is not a place of eternal torment, but a place of eternal separation from God through destruction.

Personally if someone converts to theism out of fear of hell, I think that's a shaky foundations.

There are lots of verses in the Bible as Rev said that DESCRIBE Hell.. I agree with those.

There are lots of verses that describe WHAT HAPPENS TO A SOUL in Hell, some even from Jesus himself... I agree with those. I don't know why people can't see the simple analogy of an incinerator as effective, do you think most Christians feel the soul is incapable of being destroyed?

 

[DCJazz]

Apparently there are parts of you Bible you have not read. Try Rev. 21.

Is that one about the lake of fire and the weeping and gnashing of teeth?
Cuz I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Timothew]

Is that one about the lake of fire and the weeping and gnashing of teeth?
Cuz I was thinking the same thing.

Cool, have you read it?

Do you know what John said he meant when he wrote "Lake of Fire"?
"their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death" Rev 21:8

Why should we assume the second death is radically different from the first death? Is it because we just can't let go of our presuppositions about hell?

John said what he meant by the lake of fire, and it is NOT eternal torment in fire, it is death. The second death, after the first death and resurrection to judgment.

 

[Timothew]

Is that one about the lake of fire and the weeping and gnashing of teeth?
Cuz I was thinking the same thing.

What I don't understand is, if you really believe Rev 21 supports hell-fire eternal torment, why do you not change your view after I've shown that Rev 21 supports annihilationism? This is really for the Revrobor. After being shown that the lake of fire refers to the second death, he just went on to some other argument designed to change my mind, without addressing the scripture he brought up in the first place. It appears that he doesn't care about what the scriptures say, if they disagree with him.

 

[Fireinfolding]

So whats the verdict? When death (which one?) and hell deliver up the dead (in both) these... (both death and hell) are shown not to be permanant places for the dead (given both deliver up the very dead) specifically (in them) to be judged right?

And if death and hell deliver up the dead in them, they cannot be permanant. Because both death and hell are cast into the lake of fire (which is the second death) and likewise anyone not found in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire correct?

But there isnt considered any torment in these places (as noted in the parable)? That is changed somehow? And there is supposedly no torment as is associated in the lake of fire (which is by definition) the second death either?

I am only asking, to get the jist of how hell hath no torment and the lake of fire hath no torment, or how the torment associated with both is become void somehow?

For example, if torment is written concerning hell (this place of torment) and the lake of fire (the second death) which specifically notes torment how does the torment associated with both become void.

Why does the scripture mention torment in relation to either is what I am asking?

I'm trying to understand how others reason with these things.

 

[Timothew]

I searched "torment"
Bible Search Results: torment

For such a widespread belief, the word "torment" appears very few times.
One instance of "When you die you go to hell to be tormented forever" would be enough, but strangely, the bible never says that. There is a parable where one character is in torment, but I don't think we should take one detail in a parable and use it to override all of the rest of scripture. Over and over in the bible, the fate of unbelievers is death or destruction. At the very least, they don't receive eternal life. To my way of thinking, not having "life" is exactly the same as being dead.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I searched "torment"
Bible Search Results: torment

For such a widespread belief, the word "torment" appears very few times.
One instance of "When you die you go to hell to be tormented forever" would be enough, but strangely, the bible never says that. There is a parable where one character is in torment, but I don't think we should take one detail in a parable and use it to override all of the rest of scripture. Over and over in the bible, the fate of unbelievers is death or destruction. At the very least, they don't receive eternal life. To my way of thinking, not having "life" is exactly the same as being dead.

Thank you Timothew, a parable is a likeness though, wouldnt you agree? Hell (even death) couldnt be forever though, because death and hell (specifically) deliver up the dead in them. So the dead in these two are delivered up from them. And we see death and hell (even if a place of torment) are cast into the lake of fire (which we know is the second death).

So forever, in repects to hell (which the parable indicates as being a place of torment) is cast into something other (then itself). Death and hell, cast into a place which is called the second death (the lake of fire). Where again, torment is also noted here likewise. So from the former (death and hell) and those (in either) are shown delivered up from them. Which does not appear to indicate a place of permanent residency for the dead. However that which is called the second death has both of these (and likewise any in either) who are not found written in the book of life cast into itself.

So it very much appears, as in the parable of the rich man, a place of torment is so noted specifically so (in relation to it) but in revelation, shows a bit more clearly (perhaps) that this place of torment is not permanent. Given those in either death (or hell) itself are in fact delivered up (from them). Showing the dead (in either) delivered up first then are judged.

So something other then death and hell is shown (the lake of fire) which is also shown as a place of torment. This showing what appears to be the more permanent residency of both death (and hell) but also of those not written in the book of life.

So I am trying to look at more then one scripture myself. I agree we should do that.

I will have a look at your link though, thanks

 

[Fireinfolding]

Ok, I took a look at your link, I thought the link you provided was for something else, but it just contains the scriptures which show the word torment in them throughout.

These I am aware of

 

[revrobor]

Is that one about the lake of fire and the weeping and gnashing of teeth?
Cuz I was thinking the same thing.

You're thinking of Matt. 8:22 and 11:50. Rev. 14:11 and 20:10 also defines what the "...second death." is really like. It's not death as we commonly understand it. And it certainly is not annihilation.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I dont see how such a death (even the second) means annihilation and still have torment associated with it, which I believe is a reasonable question in relation to the doctrine.

Examining both death and hell (which both contain the dead) and hell being described as a place of torment (obviously temporary). Its still associated with being a place of torment. The dead (in it) are delivered up and judged. However if the dead (in either) are not found in the book of life) they cast into the lake of fire (called the second death) with both death and hell, but again (the same) is associated with torment.

 

[tackattack]

Rev. 20:10 says eternal torment for sure. It's specifically for "the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown"
Rev. 14 talks certainly about some people (those that accept the beast's mark) "will be tormented with burning sulfur" however then is says "the smoke of their torment will rise for ever and ever". This to me signifies that collectively as a group there are so many that there will always be smoke, not that each soul lasts for an eternity. It then follows with "will be no rest day or night" for them. I don't think the soul is eternal by construct, nor can I find scripture to support that view. I can however find lots of references to Plato (prominent at the time of the epistles writing) believing that it was.



If I was burning in a consuming fire, I would a) be in tortuous pain b) not be able to rest c)would eventually be destroyed. I think this view is completely in line with all scriptures and doesn't deny any scripture. If it does, please point it out to me, as my family aren't annihilaitonists, and it puts us into odds a bit, despite our strong Christian love for each other. They haven't answered that yet either, so please if anyone can see an inconsistency help me out here.This is how I believe the Holy Spirit has shown things to me through study and reflection on God's Word. I see the view of annihilationist who deny any cost or torment in denial of some view. I see eternal torment without destruction as denial of other verses. Logically and with all my Spirit and heart this seems to be the only conclusion left. I'm open to correction and other viewpoints, as long as their done with love and compassion.

 

[Timothew]

I dont see how such a death (even the second) means annihilation and still have torment associated with it, which I believe is a reasonable question in relation to the doctrine.

Examining both death and hell (which both contain the dead) and hell being described as a place of torment (obviously temporary). Its still associated with being a place of torment. The dead (in it) are delivered up and judged. However if the dead (in either) are not found in the book of life) they cast into the lake of fire (called the second death) with both death and hell, but again (the same) is associated with torment.

If the parable is describing literal torment, it still doesn't address eternal torment in hell. In the parable, the rich man is in Hades, not Hell. Hades is the "Hell" that is cast into the Lake of Fire. So even if there is torment in Hades, it is temporary. When Hades is cast into the Lake of Fire, Hades is finished. John calls the Lake of Fire the second death. There is no reason to import the supposed torment of Hades into the Lake of Fire, and then call both of them "Hell".

Hades is a greek term, the NT writers use it to represent the Hebrew term Sheol. Sheol is the "place" that all of the dead go. Sheol represents death. Sheol is not an actual place where ghosts of dead people exist. That is a greek idea, Homer's Poems contain this idea. All of the OT writers expected to go to Sheol. What they were saying is that they knew that they were going to die someday. The message the prophets has was that they knew that they would not be left in Sheol (they wouldn't remain dead), they would be resurrected to life. Jesus also promises us this same resurrection to life, and he promises that this resurrected life will be eternal.

 

[Guy Rex Rodgers]

Good discussion.

Whether or not there is a Hell, and the evidence is not nearly as strong as its proponents like to believe, we do need to think about why it would exist and why certain types of Christians make it foundational to their theology.

This discussion demonstates that Hell is necessary to 'scare' people into believing. And when fear fails, the hell-fire types wake away waving their Bible.

The Biblical dividing line between heaven and hell is the choice between good and evil. No one is admitted to heaven who is not perfectly righteous. (Another lengthy debate about who is perfectly righteous and how that happens) but this is what the scripture tell us. Similarly, hell (or eternal death) is the punishment for the unredeemably evil.

The Hell fire preachers are steeped in original sin which makes all 'unsaved' totally depraved. Salvation is an easy thing for them and the grounds for damnation are equally shallow.

Who is going to go straight to heaven because they received a few drops of baptismal water or because they uttered the sinner's prayer? And who is going to 'Hell' because they sought God but rejected threats of Hell fire?

Salvation is much more complex and profound than a momentary decision. It is total, life-transforming and eternal. This becomes clearer when we think about heaven and its opposite. Or it should.

 

[Fireinfolding]

If the parable is describing literal torment, it still doesn't address eternal torment in hell. In the parable, the rich man is in Hades, not Hell. Hades is the "Hell" that is cast into the Lake of Fire. So even if there is torment in Hades, it is temporary. When Hades is cast into the Lake of Fire, Hades is finished. John calls the Lake of Fire the second death. There is no reason to import the supposed torment of Hades into the Lake of Fire, and then call both of them "Hell".

We can just change the words to the more appropriate Timothew because whether we call hell hades (or candyland) whatever the name of the place is to compare it aright is still what we are doing.

For example # 86 hell = hadēs


And in 1722 hell 86 he lift up 1869 his 846 eyes 3788, being 5225 in 1722 torments 931, and seeth 3708 Abraham 11 afar 3113 off 575, and 2532 Lazarus 2976 in 1722 his 846 bosom 2859.


Again here # 86 hell= hadēs


And 2532 the sea 2281 gave up 1325 the dead 3498 which 3588 were in 1722 it 846; and 2532 death 2288 and 2532 hell 86 delivered up 1325 the dead 3498 which 3588 were in 1722 them 846: and 2532 they were judged 2919 every man 1538 according to 2596 their 846 works 2041.

The latter shows both death and hell (or hades) where the dead are, and delivered up from. Torment is just mentioned in repects to hell (hades) whichever word you feel comfortable with. But I agree, that since (hell hades) delivers up the dead in it (as does death) that it cannot be forever "place of torment". There is another place associated with a for ever place of torment where death and hell (hades) are cast in. If the likeness of torment associated with the place is not real then neither is comfort of Lazarus real either. However, since the torment of "the place" is not forever (per revelation) where hades gives up the dead in it, the one holding the keys to the same (hades) is eternal.

Hades is a greek term, the NT writers use it to represent the Hebrew term Sheol. Sheol is the "place" that all of the dead go. Sheol represents death. Sheol is not an actual place where ghosts of dead people exist. That is a greek idea, Homer's Poems contain this idea. All of the OT writers expected to go to Sheol. What they were saying is that they knew that they were going to die someday. The message the prophets has was that they knew that they would not be left in Sheol (they wouldn't remain dead), they would be resurrected to life. Jesus also promises us this same resurrection to life, and he promises that this resurrected life will be eternal.

I get the word exchanges, the dead are noted by the Holy Ghost as being in both death (thanatos) and hell (hades) though.

Rev 20:13 death #2288 (thanatos) and hell #86 (hadēs) delivered up the dead in them

Both words used interchangeable here...

O death 2288(thanatos) where 4226 [is] thy 4675 sting 2759? O grave 86, (hadēs) where 4226 is thy 4675 victory 3534?

This from Hosea 13:14, using the two hebrew words

In the OT O death #4194 is (maveth) and O grave #7585 is shĕ'owl written as hell in the OT but the lexicon likewise shows as hades

The two are shown (side by side) whether in hebrew or in greek. Whether of death maveth with shĕ'owl hell or hades (In Hebrew) or death thanatos and hell or hadēs (In Greek).

That much we can catch comparitively and show in both places. I try not to get up up on the words too much, but I didnt want you to think I ignore them, for simplicitys sake I try to keep them as written but compare them as they are compared by their wording is all.

God bless you