Hell

[CherubRam]

He did - and he said it illustrates the point that if they do not believe Moses they will not believe though one rises from the dead (Christ).



If you have an earlier manuscript for the Gospel of Luke that does not contain chapter 16 - please provide it.



That is true - and the fiery gehenna idea in Matt 10:28 points to the Rev 20 event - where "both body and soul are destroyed" in fiery Gehenna.

in Christ,

Bob

Regards to Lazarus and the rich man story: Theophilus is the name or honorary title of the person to whom the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are addressed (Luke 1:3, Acts 1:1)

It is unanimously agreed that both Luke and Acts were originally written in Koine Greek, and that "Theophilos," as it appears therein, means friend of God or (be)loved by God or loving God in the Greek language.

No one knows the true identity of Theophilus who wrote the story, and there are more than several conjectures and traditions around an identity.
In all there are about eight traditions based upon that story. Again I say: Hell has never been a doctrinal belief in Judaism.

Was Theophilus who wrote the story a Gnostic or Pagan? Did Yahshua really say that?

 

[CherubRam]

I believe the greek there is Hades, so basically Hades and the grave are cast into the lake of fire. The lake is the ultimate eternal Hell.

OK, so you believe in the Greek god Hades.

 

[he-man]

Again. The interpretive structure in the Bible is ALLEGORICAL. God uses an admixture of literal and symbolic meaning which, once seen and understood, is logical and coherent--as all prescriptive truth, once revealed, must be. This structure, designed by God and eminently pointed to by huge amounts of symbolic language from the Psalms to the prophets to Jesus as a hint to carnal man to seek that realm (allegory) He hides His meaning in.

Okay so read this Just a few verses for correction of your thoughts:
Ps 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Deu 29:20 The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Psa 50:3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.

Isa 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Annihilationists frequently complain that it would be immoral for God to inflict everlasting torture on His creatures. Clark Pinnock regards the doctrine of endless punishment as "morally flawed" and a "moral enormity." If the "outrageous doctrine" of the traditionalists were true, God would be a "cruel" and "vindictive" deity. In fact, He would be "more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards...."

Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a "bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die." bible-reasearcher.com/hell5.html #Note2

Pinnock states, "it would amount to inflicting infinite suffering upon those who have committed finite sin. It would go far beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. There would be a serious disproportion between sins committed in time and the suffering experienced forever." Such vindictiveness, we are told, is totally incompatible with the character of God and utterly unacceptable to "sensitive Christians." It would "serve no purpose" and be an act of "sheer vengeance and vindictiveness," which is "out of keeping with the love of God revealed in the gospels."

LeRoy Edwin Froom, in his book The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, presents a list of seventy words that he says demonstrate total annihilation. On the basis of these words, Froom exults triumphantly that "no loopholes are left." Edward W. Fudge likewise cites this list, and concludes: "Without exception they portray destruction, extinction or extermination." The most common term translated "destroy" in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word abad. It is used to describe the fate of the wicked, as in, for example, Proverbs 11:10. Evildoers are also said to be "cut off."

Fudge and Pinnock both cite Psalm 37:22, 28, 34, and 38 as representative Stott asserts that the verb apollumi means "destroy," and the noun apoleia means "destruction." He cites Matthew 2:13, 12:14, and 27:4, which refer to Herod's desire to destroy the baby Jesus, and the later Jewish plot to have Him executed. Stott then mentions Matthew 10:28 (cf. James 4:12): "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy [apolesai] both soul and body in hell."

He regards this "destruction" as a reference to the soul's total annihilation in hell. Stott also offers the contrast between believers and unbelievers as manifest proof: "If believers are hoi sozomenoi (those who are being saved), then unbelievers are hoi apollumenoi (those who are perishing). This phrase occurs in 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3, and in 2 Thessalonians 2:10." He believes that this language of destruction points to the total annihilation of the wicked.

Stott concludes: "It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed; ... it is difficult to imagine a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing."

"To destroy is to ruin. The nature of that ruin depends on the nature of the subject of which it is predicated. A thing is ruined when it is rendered unfit for use; when it is in such a state that it can no longer answer the end for which it was designed ... Pinnock states, for example, that the Bible repeatedly "uses the imagery of fire consuming (not torturing) what is thrown into it. The images of fire and destruction together strongly suggest annihilation rather than unending torture."

Pinnock then cites Malachi 4:1 as a case in point. [Stott] says that the main function of fire is not to cause pain but to secure destruction, as in the case of an incinerator. The Bible speaks of a "consuming fire" and of "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17). Stott concludes, "The fire itself is termed 'eternal' and 'unquenchable' but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proved indestructible.

Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which 'rises forever and ever' (Rev. 14:11; cf. 19:3)."
Stott (Evangelical Essentials
LeRoy Froom The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: The Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1965).
Fudge, "Final End of the Wicked," .

Hos 13:3 Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimney.

Quoting from Bible Research by Michael Marlowe › Interpretation › Hell

 

[Norah63]

As a man thinks, so is he. What makes a man(or woman) think so much about hell?
It amazes me about christians.
Perfect love casts out fear, so if there is no fear of anything, what is the problem?

 

[Timothew]

As a man thinks, so is he. What makes a man(or woman) think so much about hell?
It amazes me about christians.
Perfect love casts out fear, so if there is no fear of anything, what is the problem?

I want to know the truth about Hell because of what it says about the nature of God. I want to know the truth about Hell, for the same reason I want to know the truth about all of the rest of the topics that the Bible talks about. I want to understand what the Bible REALLY says. And I do NOT believe that the traditional view of Hell is correct according to what the Bible says.

If there were as many people who said "Jesus is not God, but a god" as there are people who say that there is eternal conscious torment (ECT) in hell, I would spend more time on THAT error instead of THIS error. Since ECT is the doctrine that has deceived the most Christians, I believe that exposing the false doctrine of ECT is the best area of Bible study. Particularly when you consider what the doctrine of eternal torture says about the God who supposedly invented it.


As false doctrines change and arise, my answer may change.

 

[createdtoworship]

OK, so you believe in the Greek god Hades.

I think people confuse borrowing words from greek language and borrowing words from greek mythology. I believe Jesus simply used greek words to convey His message. He used words that both mythology and the greek language used collectively. It is actually a guilt by association fallacy to say Hades, or Tartarus etc are borrowed from greek mythology.
Isaiah 66:24 speaks of hell before greek mythology was in practice. So if anything the greeks used a concept from ancient Jews and modified it.

Tartarus is a greek word as well,
The first occasions of this word are in homers Iliad which is several centuries BC. Greek mythology had hundreds of years to sink in to the etymology of words like “Tartarus” or the underworld. I believe that the Bible used a word common for being defined as the “underworld.” In the same way if you look up Hell in various English writings of native American religions you will see it used simultaneously with Xibalbá, Shobari Waka, Adlivun, and Mictlan. Some of these “hells” are even ruled by “demons.” Does this mean that the word "demon", or "Hell" are borrowed from native American mythologies? Hardly. Some words describe certain things in each language. In Greek the terms were tartarus, or Hades. The Bible, being written in Greek used those terms because there were no other terms for Hell at the time. Hell is our English equivalent.

Secondly, Gehennah is another term used to describe Hell.
the fact that these terms exist in the Bible is proven, so you must reject the Bible to reject these terms.

The concept of “hell” [Gehenna] is translated the way it is because, as physical beings, we can only relate to concepts after they have been clothed in physical analo-giles. 55-Raphael, Simcha Paull; Raphael, Simcha Paull (2009). Jewish Views of the Afterlife (p. 43). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.

basically what a prominent Jewish authority states is that they use analogies from existing conditions to show that these things exist. In other words how to you describe a spiritual place without using physical locale? He was saying, hey you know the valley of hinnom that you hate? Yeah well that is like what Hell is. I can't exactly use words that you know, but you know of the valley of hinnom.

 

[createdtoworship]

I think you missed a post, 3 arguments for the existence of eternal hell:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7829376/#post65902454

 

[createdtoworship]

I want to know the truth about Hell because of what it says about the nature of God. I want to know the truth about Hell, for the same reason I want to know the truth about all of the rest of the topics that the Bible talks about. I want to understand what the Bible REALLY says. And I do NOT believe that the traditional view of Hell is correct according to what the Bible says.

If there were as many people who said "Jesus is not God, but a god" as there are people who say that there is eternal conscious torment (ECT) in hell, I would spend more time on THAT error instead of THIS error. Since ECT is the doctrine that has deceived the most Christians, I believe that exposing the false doctrine of ECT is the best area of Bible study. Particularly when you consider what the doctrine of eternal torture says about the God who supposedly invented it.


As false doctrines change and arise, my answer may change.

when you use the word "deceived" here you are begging the question as to nature of deception and which position is in fact deceived. Since you give no arguments here.

 

[createdtoworship]

Okay so read this Just a few verses for correction of your thoughts:
Ps 1:4 The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6 For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.

Deu 29:20 The LORD will not spare him, but then the anger of the LORD and his jealousy shall smoke against that man, and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him, and the LORD shall blot out his name from under heaven.

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Heb 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Psa 50:3 Our God shall come, and shall not keep silence: a fire shall devour before him, and it shall be very tempestuous round about him.

Isa 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever.

Annihilationists frequently complain that it would be immoral for God to inflict everlasting torture on His creatures. Clark Pinnock regards the doctrine of endless punishment as "morally flawed" and a "moral enormity." If the "outrageous doctrine" of the traditionalists were true, God would be a "cruel" and "vindictive" deity. In fact, He would be "more nearly like Satan than like God, at least by any ordinary moral standards...."

Indeed, the traditionalist's God is a "bloodthirsty monster who maintains an everlasting Auschwitz for victims whom he does not even allow to die." bible-reasearcher.com/hell5.html #Note2

Pinnock states, "it would amount to inflicting infinite suffering upon those who have committed finite sin. It would go far beyond an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. There would be a serious disproportion between sins committed in time and the suffering experienced forever." Such vindictiveness, we are told, is totally incompatible with the character of God and utterly unacceptable to "sensitive Christians." It would "serve no purpose" and be an act of "sheer vengeance and vindictiveness," which is "out of keeping with the love of God revealed in the gospels."

LeRoy Edwin Froom, in his book The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, presents a list of seventy words that he says demonstrate total annihilation. On the basis of these words, Froom exults triumphantly that "no loopholes are left." Edward W. Fudge likewise cites this list, and concludes: "Without exception they portray destruction, extinction or extermination." The most common term translated "destroy" in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word abad. It is used to describe the fate of the wicked, as in, for example, Proverbs 11:10. Evildoers are also said to be "cut off."

Fudge and Pinnock both cite Psalm 37:22, 28, 34, and 38 as representative Stott asserts that the verb apollumi means "destroy," and the noun apoleia means "destruction." He cites Matthew 2:13, 12:14, and 27:4, which refer to Herod's desire to destroy the baby Jesus, and the later Jewish plot to have Him executed. Stott then mentions Matthew 10:28 (cf. James 4:12): "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy [apolesai] both soul and body in hell."

He regards this "destruction" as a reference to the soul's total annihilation in hell. Stott also offers the contrast between believers and unbelievers as manifest proof: "If believers are hoi sozomenoi (those who are being saved), then unbelievers are hoi apollumenoi (those who are perishing). This phrase occurs in 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15; 4:3, and in 2 Thessalonians 2:10." He believes that this language of destruction points to the total annihilation of the wicked.

Stott concludes: "It would seem strange, therefore, if people who are said to suffer destruction are in fact not destroyed; ... it is difficult to imagine a perpetually inconclusive process of perishing."

"To destroy is to ruin. The nature of that ruin depends on the nature of the subject of which it is predicated. A thing is ruined when it is rendered unfit for use; when it is in such a state that it can no longer answer the end for which it was designed ... Pinnock states, for example, that the Bible repeatedly "uses the imagery of fire consuming (not torturing) what is thrown into it. The images of fire and destruction together strongly suggest annihilation rather than unending torture."

Pinnock then cites Malachi 4:1 as a case in point. [Stott] says that the main function of fire is not to cause pain but to secure destruction, as in the case of an incinerator. The Bible speaks of a "consuming fire" and of "burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Matt. 3:12; cf. Luke 3:17). Stott concludes, "The fire itself is termed 'eternal' and 'unquenchable' but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proved indestructible.

Our expectation would be the opposite: it would be consumed forever, not tormented forever. Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which 'rises forever and ever' (Rev. 14:11; cf. 19:3)."
Stott (Evangelical Essentials
LeRoy Froom The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, 2 vols. (Washington, DC: The Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1965).
Fudge, "Final End of the Wicked," .

Hos 13:3 Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff that is driven with the whirlwind out of the floor, and as the smoke out of the chimney.

hello HEMAN, it is against forum rules to copy and paste from copy-write websites without sourcing it. I have warned you of this on several occasions. Here are the forum rules: "All quoted copyrighted material must be linked to the web page from which it was taken." (this is plagiarism)

firstly,

secondly, you quote moral arguments against the traditional from this website: Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell
which if you continue reading rebuffs everything you just quoted. So it's a quote out of context (which is a fallacy) secondly,

lets dive into how your post errs....


"Stott and Pinnock's argument that "sins committed in time cannot be worthy of eternal suffering" is fallacious. It assumes that the heinousness of a crime is directly related to the time it takes to commit it. But such a connection is nonexistent. Some crimes, such as murder, may take only a moment to commit, whereas it may take a thief hours to load up a moving van with someone's possessions. Yet, murder is a far more serious crime than theft. [7]
Second, the nature of the object against which the sin is committed, as well as the nature of the sin itself, must be taken into account when determining the degree of heinousness. As W. G. T. Shedd observes, stealing in general is a crime, but stealing from one's mother is even more despicable because one owes special allegiance to one's parents. Torturing an animal is a crime, but torturing a human being is an even greater crime, worthy of greater punishment. The criminal act is the same in each case (i.e., stealing and torture), as is the person committing the act. But "the different worth and dignity of the objects upon whom his action terminates makes the difference in the gravity of the two offenses." [8]
How much more serious, then, is even the slightest offense against an absolutely holy God, who is worthy of our complete and perpetual allegiance? [9] Indeed, sin against an absolutely holy God is absolutely serious. For this reason, the unredeemed suffer absolute, unending alienation from God; this alienation is the essence of hell. It is the annihilationist's theory that is morally flawed. Their God is not truly holy, for he does not demand that sin receive its due.
The reason these "sensitive Christians" have such an emotional problem with hell is because they, in the words of Anselm, "have not as yet estimated the great burden of sin." [10] If they truly saw sin as God does (recognizing that no sinner can do so perfectly), they would not have the slightest problem with the doctrine. Indeed, they would find themselves distraught if God did not punish sin for all eternity."

above section from :

Evangelicals and the Annihilation of Hell

 

[jamie2014]

If there were as many people who said "Jesus is not God, but a god"...

So do you believe the man Jesus is the only true God?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Der Alter said,


Where did I say that the Rich man/Lazarus story specifically mentioned duration?"A"

the word of God exists forever"B"

The passage "none may cross over from there to us." will remain in God's word unless/until He changes it.
From the above, you could take either the position that the rich man's punishment is of unknown or infinite duration.

You could mean since the word of God exists forever, the "none may cross over" reference, because it is part of God's unchanging word, necessarily applies infinite duration to the verse.

Alternatively, you could be saying that even though God's word exists forever, it is within His power, right and ability to change it if He pleases; hence, the verse is of unknown duration.

Which of these represents your actual view?

You must have missed this DA. What's your answer?

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Der Alter posted:

Because there is no, zero, none credible, verifiable, historical evidence to support your "fragmental removal by God of false elements from the human soul." fantasy.

So you're saying proper Bible interpretation hinges on "credible, verifiable, historical evidence"? So in your view, the Bible's truth is established by a preponderance of "credible, verifiable, historical evidence", i.e., by the greatest number of historical citations a particular interpretation is able to provide? Help me understand your position please.



Still waiting for an answer here DA.

 

[dumpsterdiver45]

Hell as the grave or the place of punishment could be cast into the LOF. But death is the moment in time end of life. It has no physical substance and cannot be literally thrown anywhere. There is another "hell" in scripture which can be thrown. In Rev 6:8 the angel of death and the angel or demon of hell are given power to kill 1/4 of the earth. When their task is completed they are thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended.

Look at the twisty turny gymnast. Quite a show there, DA. The only real problem is the metaphysical one (non-substantive life beyond point of physical death), which is to this point only a stopping point in human logic. God does what He wants where and when He wants.

The "other hell" you contend for is your own fantasy.

 

[CherubRam]

I think people confuse borrowing words from greek language and borrowing words from greek mythology. I believe Jesus simply used greek words to convey His message. He used words that both mythology and the greek language used collectively. It is actually a guilt by association fallacy to say Hades, or Tartarus etc are borrowed from greek mythology.
Isaiah 66:24 speaks of hell before greek mythology was in practice. So if anything the greeks used a concept from ancient Jews and modified it.

Tartarus is a greek word as well,
The first occasions of this word are in homers Iliad which is several centuries BC. Greek mythology had hundreds of years to sink in to the etymology of words like “Tartarus” or the underworld. I believe that the Bible used a word common for being defined as the “underworld.” In the same way if you look up Hell in various English writings of native American religions you will see it used simultaneously with Xibalbá, Shobari Waka, Adlivun, and Mictlan. Some of these “hells” are even ruled by “demons.” Does this mean that the word "demon", or "Hell" are borrowed from native American mythologies? Hardly. Some words describe certain things in each language. In Greek the terms were tartarus, or Hades. The Bible, being written in Greek used those terms because there were no other terms for Hell at the time. Hell is our English equivalent.

Secondly, Gehennah is another term used to describe Hell.
the fact that these terms exist in the Bible is proven, so you must reject the Bible to reject these terms.

The concept of “hell” [Gehenna] is translated the way it is because, as physical beings, we can only relate to concepts after they have been clothed in physical analo-giles. 55-Raphael, Simcha Paull; Raphael, Simcha Paull (2009). Jewish Views of the Afterlife (p. 43). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.

basically what a prominent Jewish authority states is that they use analogies from existing conditions to show that these things exist. In other words how to you describe a spiritual place without using physical locale? He was saying, hey you know the valley of hinnom that you hate? Yeah well that is like what Hell is. I can't exactly use words that you know, but you know of the valley of hinnom.

Yahshua was a Hebrew preaching the good news about the New Covenant of Judaism, not Greek. Yahshua was speaking to Hebrews, not Greeks. You can no believe in the place called Hades without believing in the god Hades. That is where the place name comes from.

 

[CherubRam]

Why do you guys fight tooth and nail to prove that God is a merciless God, who tortures living being for all eternity?

 

[CherubRam]

Hades ( /ˈheɪdiːz/; from Greek ᾍδης (older form Ἀϝίδη&#962, Hadēs, originally Ἅιδης, Haidēs or Άΐδης, Aidēs (Doric Ἀΐδας Aidas), meaning "the unseen") was the ancient Greek god of the underworld. The genitive ᾍδου, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades". Eventually, the nominative came to designate the abode of the dead.

In Greek mythology, Hades is the oldest male child of Cronus and Rhea. According to myth, he and his brothers Zeus and Poseidon defeated the Titans and claimed rulership over the cosmos, ruling the underworld, air, and sea, respectively; the solid earth, long the province of Gaia, was available to all three concurrently.

Hades was also called "Plouton" (Greek: Πλούτων, gen.: Πλούτωνος, meaning "Rich One"), a name which the Romans Latinized as Pluto. The Romans would associate Hades/Pluto with their own chthonic gods, Dis Pater and Orcus. The corresponding Etruscan god was Aita. Symbols associated with him are the Helm of Darkness, the bident and the three-headed dog, Cerberus.


The story of Lazarus and the rich man does not belong in the bible. If Christ was to introduce the pagan belief into Judaism, don't you think he would have at least explained the parable. The fact of the matter is that it is a Gnostic corruption.
Eventually the god Hades came to be designate of the abode of the dead. Again, Hades was a Pagan god. What does the god Hades have to do with Judaism. Any Jews who did believe in a Hell were not Orthodox Jews.
Gehenna
Gehenna: Mentioned twelve or thirteen times in the bible. Gehenna: Referring to the Valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna which is the city dump outside the walls of Jerusalem; it then was a place of constant burning of refuge.
Gehenna is used as a parable to mean "eternal destruction." It has nothing to do with Pagan beliefs.

P-a-r-a-b-l-e. Parable. what is a parable? What does that mean in how we understand what we are reading?

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter posted:

Because there is no, zero, none credible, verifiable, historical evidence to support your "fragmental removal by God of false elements from the human soul." fantasy

So you're saying proper Bible interpretation hinges on "credible, verifiable, historical evidence"? So in your view, the Bible's truth is established by a preponderance of "credible, verifiable, historical evidence", i.e., by the greatest number of historical citations a particular interpretation is able to provide? Help me understand your position please.

Still waiting for an answer here DA.

What it does not depend on is the wild fantasies of every would be Bible scholar who comes along claiming that the church has been wrong for 2000 years +/- and that this, that or the other verse is SPAM-Fig, that is symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor or figurative, anything but literal. And it just so happens any such SPAM-Fig supports the assumptions/presuppositions of that person. As I look around I see a googol bunch of would be Bible experts claiming that all the other guys are wrong and that their leader or organization has the only true truth interpretation what the SPAM-Fig [supposedly] means, JW, LDS, SDA, UPCI, OP, WWCG, COBU, ICC, INC, UC, etc. And they all have one thing in common they cannot give any credible evidence for their "interpretation." Everything they say must be taken on faith. Eenie, meenie, minee, moe which group should I choose?

 

[2ducklow]

My view is whatever the lake of fire is, whether it is figurative, or literal, either way it's not something I want to ever visit. whatever it is, that description of it is horrendous enough for me to avoid at all costs.

 

[Der Alte]

Hades ( /ˈheɪdiːz/; from Greek ᾍδης (older form Ἀϝίδη&#962, Hadēs, originally Ἅιδης, Haidēs or Άΐδης, Aidēs (Doric Ἀΐδας Aidas), meaning "the unseen") was the ancient Greek god of the underworld. The genitive ᾍδου, Haidou, was an elision to denote locality: "[the house/dominion] of Hades". Eventually, the nominative came to designate the abode of the dead.

In Greek mythology, Hades is the oldest male child of Cronus and Rhea. According to myth, he and his brothers Zeus and Poseidon defeated the Titans and claimed rulership over the cosmos, ruling the underworld, air, and sea, respectively; the solid earth, long the province of Gaia, was available to all three concurrently.

Hades was also called "Plouton" (Greek: Πλούτων, gen.: Πλούτωνος, meaning "Rich One"), a name which the Romans Latinized as Pluto. The Romans would associate Hades/Pluto with their own chthonic gods, Dis Pater and Orcus. The corresponding Etruscan god was Aita. Symbols associated with him are the Helm of Darkness, the bident and the three-headed dog, Cerberus.

All irrelevant. Just because you find stuff on the internet that does not make it true. The term hades came to represent the place of eternal, unending fiery punishment.

G86 ᾅδης hadēs
Thayer Definition:
1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions
2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead
3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell
Part of Speech: noun proper locative
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1 (as negative particle) and G1492
Citing in TDNT: 1:146, 22​

The story of Lazarus and the rich man does not belong in the bible. If Christ was to introduce the pagan belief into Judaism, don't you think he would have at least explained the parable. The fact of the matter is that it is a Gnostic corruption.

No, zero, none evidence. Just say anything you want to, and expect people to believe it without question. Every early church father who quoted the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be from Jesus and factual. See below. This is known as evidence vs. unsupported opinion.

Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.
Ireneaeus, 120-202 AD, was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.

1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.

ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1

On the Resurrection. But he figuratively designates the vulgar rabble, attached to ephemeral pleasure, flourishing for a little, loving ornament, loving praise, and being everything but truth-loving, good for nothing but to be burned with fire. “There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.

Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.]

In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.

The Epistles Of Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics

A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.

Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah (A.D. 260-312)

But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence.​

Eventually the god Hades came to be designate of the abode of the dead. Again, Hades was a Pagan god. What does the god Hades have to do with Judaism. Any Jews who did believe in a Hell were not Orthodox Jews.

More empty claims with no evidence.

Gehenna
Gehenna: Mentioned twelve or thirteen times in the bible. Gehenna: Referring to the Valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna which is the city dump outside the walls of Jerusalem; it then was a place of constant burning of refuge.
Gehenna is used as a parable to mean "eternal destruction." It has nothing to do with Pagan beliefs.

Even after having been proved wrong you continue to post false information about Gehenna. There is no archaeological evidence that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump or that bodies were dumped and burned there.

Gehenna was not used as a parable for anything!

Based on historical evidence below the Hell:No! view being presented in this forum is false. The Jews, in Israel before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal, unending, fiery torment and they called it both Gehinnom/Gehenna and Sheol. When Jesus taught about "Eternal punishment, Mt 25:46""the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mk 9:43-48" and "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Mt 13:42, 50 that supported and validated the existing view of eternal hell. Jesus was born into and grew to maturity in that culture. He knew what His countrymen, the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong Jesus would have corrected them. He did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell was correct. Here is historical evidence to support this.

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna

The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a); [Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT the bias of Christian translators.]

It is assumed in general that sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).

But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]

As mentioned above, heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).


Jewish Encyclopedia Online
====================================================================
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.

The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."

Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

 

[Der Alte]

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.

Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992

Scharen: Gehenna in the Synoptics Pt. 1​

Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.” (“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)

G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism - Bible Truth Discussion Forum​