Hell.

[Lysimachus]

Which means that God wasn't referring to the temporal burning of Sodom. He was referring to afterward, the eternal fire.

Then why was Sodom and Gomorrah used as an "example"? It said they suffered the vengeance of "eternal fire".

 

[dollarsbill]

Then why was Sodom and Gomorrah used as an "example"? It said they suffered the vengeance of "eternal fire".

Are you serious? Is Sodom still burning? It is clearly referring to the eternal fire.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by dollarsbill Which means that God wasn't referring to the temporal burning of Sodom. He was referring to afterward, the eternal fire.

Then why was Sodom and Gomorrah used as an "example"? It said they suffered the vengeance of "eternal fire".

The people of those cities ceased to exist.....are thy now in hell?

Rotherham) Isaiah 1:9 If, Yahweh of hosts, had not left us a very small remnant, Like Sodom had we become, Gomorrah had we resembled.

Rotherham) Jude 1:7 As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them having in like manner to these, given themselves over to fornication and gone away after other kind of flesh, lie exposed as an example, a penalty of age-abiding fire, undergoing.

 

[Lysimachus]

The people of those cities ceased to exist.....are thy now in hell?

Rotherham) Isaiah 1:9 If, Yahweh of hosts, had not left us a very small remnant, Like Sodom had we become, Gomorrah had we resembled.

Rotherham) Jude 1:7 As Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them having in like manner to these, given themselves over to fornication and gone away after other kind of flesh, lie exposed as an example, a penalty of age-abiding fire, undergoing.

The Rotherham translation has been proven to be good only insomuch as providing alternative translations to a particular word, but when it comes to sentence structure and correctly constructing the sentence to express what the verse is saying, it fails miserably. King James and New King James completely dominates when it comes to grammatical sentence structure.

 

[Lysimachus]

Are you serious? Is Sodom still burning? It is clearly referring to the eternal fire.

That is my point, Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning.

Unless we are going to assume that "half" of the fire God poured down on Sodom and Gomorrah disappeared, and half of it went to some underworld where he took the wicked souls of Sodom and Gomorrah to be tormented?

That's really stretching things beyond what the text says.

It says Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the vengeance of "eternal fire". What was that "eternal fire"? It was the fire that God poured down upon these cities---"fire and brimstone [sulfur]".

These cities are now pure ash, all 5 of them. The WHOLE land around the Dead Sea is filled with sulfur and ash, which is 98% pure--found nowhere else in the world.

That fire is still not burning. It is ash. Even Josephus testifies to this!

Hey, you are free to say God split his fire in two-places, where part of the fire came down and burned up the cities and all the inhabitants, while the other half he took the souls of the burned up wicked into a separate fire place where they are still burning--- but that is not what the text says.

It says:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

But Peter elsewhere explains what "eternal fire" does:

"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly" (2 Peter 2:6)

Let the texts speak to you, and do not read more into it than what they say. The same "eternal fire" is what turned "Sodom and Gomorrah" into "ashes". That's what "eternal fire" does. It is a fire that comes from God. God is a perpetual "consuming fire".

Nothing unholy can live or survive in it.

 

[dollarsbill]

The eternal fire is after death.

 

[Lysimachus]

The eternal fire is after death.

Yes, but after the second death. And remember, a second death can only transpire after a second resurrection. This is what Christ meant when He said that the wicked will be gathered up in bundles to be cast into a furnace of fire at the "end of the age". He was talking about the end of the millennium, but of course, Christ did not give them those "details". His disciples were already on "information overload". He saved those details to give to John the Beloved later on the Isle of Patmos.

 

[Montalban]

A firm traditionalist is one who holds to tradition even if all of scripture opposes him. In this case, a firm traditionalist is a person who believes there is a hell of eternal torture even though the bible specifically states that the wages of sin is death, NOT eternal torture.

Firstly, your premise is flawed in that it is arguing that only scripture matters in this - and scripture is not a detailed catechism.

Secondly the 'eternal torture' comes from separating yourself from God. There is evidence in this....

There's a parable about a man who's in torment and desires that he gets a drop of water to quench his thirst. I'm not sure if you missed it. (Luke 16:24)

There's also hunger Luke 6:25

I believe that Gehenna means of the unquenchable fire

 

[GOD is LOVE is GOD]

Firstly, your premise is flawed in that it is arguing that only scripture matters in this - and scripture is not a detailed catechism.

Secondly the 'eternal torture' comes from separating yourself from God. There is evidence in this....

There's a parable about a man who's in torment and desires that he gets a drop of water to quench his thirst. I'm not sure if you missed it. (Luke 16:24)

There's also hunger Luke 6:25

I believe that Gehenna means of the unquenchable fire

I don't disagree with your view, but I do disagree with using the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. That story is not about what you think... (I just read and studied it today..) Check out the article ---> here: Commentary - The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

Blessings to you!

 

[Lysimachus]

I don't disagree with your view, but I do disagree with using the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. That story is not about what you think... (I just read and studied it today..) Check out the article ---> here: Commentary - The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

Blessings to you!

Seems like a good article from what I glanced over. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to share a study I put together on the Rich Man and Lazarus sometime. Just a lot on my plate.

But just a little precaution--that website you linked is by Tentmaker. They are staunch Universalists. They have some truth, but there is so much garbage in other links of theirs, I fear to send people there, lol. Yes, they believe that God will eventually "vivify" all the wicked, including Satan, and they will eventually be accepted into the kingdom. This is definitely heresy. The way they rationalize every single text is beyond human comprehension. Talk about gymnastics, and semantic jugglery, they are kings of it!

 

[GOD is LOVE is GOD]

Seems like a good article from what I glanced over. Thanks for sharing. I'll have to share a study I put together on the Rich Man and Lazarus sometime. Just a lot on my plate.

But just a little precaution--that website you linked is by Tentmaker. They are staunch Universalists. They have some truth, but there is so much garbage in other links of theirs, I fear to send people there, lol. Yes, they believe that God will eventually "vivify" all the wicked, including Satan, and they will eventually be accepted into the kingdom. This is definitely heresy. The way they rationalize every single text is beyond human comprehension. Talk about gymnastics, and semantic jugglery, they are kings of it!

I definitely agree with your opinion of Tentmaker. However, this is one that is insightful and shines a new light this parable. A little bit of garbage, but definitely tolerable!

Blessings to you!

 

[Montalban]

I don't disagree with your view, but I do disagree with using the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. That story is not about what you think... (I just read and studied it today..) Check out the article ---> here: Commentary - The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

Blessings to you!

I believe it is a parable, but as an analogy of hell it shows torment.

I don't believe that people will literally thirst for water - what they will thirst for is brought about by the absence of God. And that thirst won't be satisfied.

 

[someguy14]

Luke 16:19-31 is of truth, for we know it is impossible for God to lie. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

Hell is for those that choose to serve wickedness. Without wickedness, hell doesn't exist.

 

[Timothew]

Firstly, your premise is flawed in that it is arguing that only scripture matters in this - and scripture is not a detailed catechism.

Secondly the 'eternal torture' comes from separating yourself from God. There is evidence in this....

There's a parable about a man who's in torment and desires that he gets a drop of water to quench his thirst. I'm not sure if you missed it. (Luke 16:24)

There's also hunger Luke 6:25

I believe that Gehenna means of the unquenchable fire

I won't use a detail contained in a parable about anouther subject to overthrow the plain teaching of the bible. You can if you wish to. The Apostle Paul said that the wages of sin is death. A church should agree with what the Apostle wrote. He also wrote that the penalty is destruction. Your catechism shouldn't deny that and say that the penalty is non-destruction being tortured in hell. But you are free to worship God however you choose. If you wish to deny the teaching of the apostles and go your own way, you and your friends are free to do that. I will stick to apostolic teaching.

 

[Timothew]

Deuteronomy 30:15-19
Moses specifically says what the blessing and curse is. The Blessing is life, and we know from the new testament that this is eternal life. The Curse is death, and we also know that this is eternal death, after the final judgment. Death is not eternal life in hell being tortured. Eternal life in hell being tortured is not even one of the options!

See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his rules, then you shall live and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it. But if your heart turns away, and you will not hear, but are drawn away to worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today, that you shall surely perish. You shall not live long in the land that you are going over the Jordan to enter and possess. I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Therefore choose life, that you and your offspring may live,
​

 

[Montalban]

I won't use a detail contained in a parable about anouther subject to overthrow the plain teaching of the bible.

Well the subject is about what faces us. It's about how we should know what's in store, by the teaching already given, and then what's in store

As to 'plain teaching' this is simply circular logic. Whatever interpretation you have is as the bible really means to say, and anything else is private interpretation.

You can if you wish to. The Apostle Paul said that the wages of sin is death.

Exactly, as like if a son so dishonours his father the father might say "I have no son, you are dead to me".

A church should agree with what the Apostle wrote.

Again, circular logic.

He also wrote that the penalty is destruction. Your catechism shouldn't deny that and say that the penalty is non-destruction being tortured in hell. But you are free to worship God however you choose. If you wish to deny the teaching of the apostles and go your own way, you and your friends are free to do that. I will stick to apostolic teaching.

Aside from further appeal to circular logic, what's your alternative? Oblivion?

 

[Montalban]

I can do the same as well:

Luke 12:5, “But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”

Matthew 10:28 “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Mathew 18:8 and 25:41, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

I can also appeal to circular logic: These verses CLEARLY say that there's punishment in hell.

I even bolded it and underlined it so it must be true! If people don't believe me I can re-quote it in different colours

 

[Kepha]

Matthew 10:28 “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Mathew 18:8 and 25:41, “Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

I can also appeal to circular logic: These verses CLEARLY say that there's punishment in hell.

I even bolded it and underlined it so it must be true! If people don't believe me I can re-quote it in different colours

I believe the problem is that they say the punishment is limited and then go as far as to imply that any word such as Death, or Destroy for example, should be taken literally, even when we're dealing with spirituality. So to us, Death or Destroy is a separation of Life with God. To them, it's the same as a body dying here in physical form then that same concept applied to the soul. And the 'Everlasting' word I'm sure they'll continue to argue that in that context, the definition of the word means up to a point but change their tone when dealing with 'Everlasting and life' by saying then it means forever and ever as we would believe it means. It's just picking and choosing which definition to use based on an already erroneous conclusion that death and vanish are literal meanings in the case of Spirituality when we know that's not the case even from reading the first Book of the OT regarding the tree of life and death.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Luke 16:19-31 is of truth, for we know it is impossible for God to lie. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

Hell is for those that choose to serve wickedness. Without wickedness, hell doesn't exist.

That covenantle parable is the only one that depicts someone burning in hell.

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary


http://www.christianforums.com/t7461118/#post54553876
Lazarus and 2 witnesses of Reve 11 similarity

John 11:39 Jesus is saying "take away ye! the stone".
Martha is saying to Him, the sister of the one having deceased "Lord, already he stinking, for it is fourth-day
43 And these saying, to a great Voice He cries-out "Lazarus, hither out!"

Reve 11:12 And they hear a great Voice out of the Heaven saying to them "Ascend ye here!".
And they ascended into the heaven in the cloud and observed them, the enemies of them.

 

[Montalban]

When I saw this thread I thought "Oh, hell!"