Hell

[Der Alte]

No. we had this discussion before and it went nowhere. What you presented is demonstrably wrong. it can be shown from Scripture.

That sounds a lot like "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" If you could demonstrate that anything I posted was wrong you would have already posted it. But alas you did not indicating that was an empty boast.

However, even if it was the case it doesn't prove that's where it entered the Christian faith.

Let me see Jesus and His disciples were Jews, many Jews at the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal unending fiery torment and they called it both sheol and Gehinnom. When Jesus taught about eternal punishment,etc it supported the Jewish belief in hell. But no, let's ignore all that and claim with zero evidence that the teaching of hell didn't come from Judaism but from pagans. Is that about right?

 

[mark kennedy]

I have been thinking a lot about sound and light lately. I have been thinking of Hell as an absence of sound and light, being cast into the outer darkness without God. Just read the first few verses of John about in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Darkness is the absence of light, He is the Light and the Sound. I have been thinking for years that total separation from God would be much worse as a Hell than a literal fire. Torment would be without Christ, the absence of the Light and Sound.
Does this make sense to anyone? I'm percolating some theories here. I believe the Bible is the inherent Word of God, but I don't know if we could really comprehend what Hell is- total annhilation of the soul (absence of sound and light) and perhaps describing it as fire is the only way himans can begin to understand the continuous torture of being without God. I think about the lines in the Bible about being cast into the outer darkness.

While the condemned are consciously suffering in Hell, the lake of fire May well end consciousness. Annilation is not an easy doctrine to defend and it shouldn't be confused with soul sleep. Last summer I did a study of annihilation Hell and the lake of fire. With the exception of one verse they Scriptures can be reconciled to ultimate annilation. Personally it makes sense God can destroy anything he creates. The idea of fire is the idea if something reduced to ash. Not disassembled or incarcerated but totally consumed.

 

[Lazarus Short]

While the condemned are consciously suffering in Hell, the lake of fire May well end consciousness. Annilation is not an easy doctrine to defend and it shouldn't be confused with soul sleep. Last summer I did a study of annihilation Hell and the lake of fire. With the exception of one verse they Scriptures can be reconciled to ultimate annilation. Personally it makes sense God can destroy anything he creates. The idea of fire is the idea if something reduced to ash. Not disassembled or incarcerated but totally consumed.

I did my own study, and found little support of annihilation. Remember that, yes, Gan can (and has the right to) destroy what He creates, but He is more a God of creation than a God of destruction. He created the cosmos and said that it was very good. Could He say the same thing about what He destroyed? Further, tell me what the fire consumes, us, or our wood, hay and stubble?

 

[Goatee]

Hell........................................Only God knows of its existence, how souls are treated etc. Everything talked about in this thread is 'guesswork'. Don't worry about hell if you are living a Godly life (Wish i was!)

 

[AngelOf Laodicea]

These are all Old Testament verses and completely out of context.

Rom 9:13 Even as it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

 

[Galatea]

Hated- past tense.

 

[mark kennedy]

I did my own study, and found little support of annihilation. Remember that, yes, Gan can (and has the right to) destroy what He creates, but He is more a God of creation than a God of destruction. He created the cosmos and said that it was very good. Could He say the same thing about what He destroyed? Further, tell me what the fire consumes, us, or our wood, hay and stubble?

Well the expression 'wood hay and stubble' is a reference to the judgment of believers:

But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:11-15)
​

I only encountered the concept a few months ago and it took some time to even consider it. The guy who was presenting the argument seemed pretty reasonable and had a moral conflict with God torturing his creatures for all eternity. I went through every text I could find and tried to remain somewhat objective, what I found is that only one verse could not be reconciled to the idea of annihilation. I haven't seen anyone really preaching this as essential doctrine, just suggesting it as an alternative reading.

Its a reasonable position even though I realize it would be a hard one to defend effectively. I seen one poster, a long time online acquaintance of mine concede that I had reconciled all but one of the proof texts. It simply makes sense to me but still remains something that I cannot nail down, I suppose I will be revisiting the issue from time to time before I'm sure one way or the other.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Lazarus Short]

Everything talked about in this thread is 'guesswork'.

Pardon me, but...how about the quotes from the Bible?

 

[Butch5]

That sounds a lot like "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!" If you could demonstrate that anything I posted was wrong you would have already posted it. But alas you did not indicating that was an empty boast.

Let me see Jesus and His disciples were Jews, many Jews at the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal unending fiery torment and they called it both sheol and Gehinnom. When Jesus taught about eternal punishment,etc it supported the Jewish belief in hell. But no, let's ignore all that and claim with zero evidence that the teaching of hell didn't come from Judaism but from pagans. Is that about right?

I told you, the discussion went nowhere. If you ignored the evidence last time why would I expect you to accept it this time? Why should I spend time writing a post that you will simply reject.

Yes, there were Jews who believed as you say. They were the Essenes. However, they're not really mentioned in the Bible.

8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:8 KJV)

The Sadducess didn't believe there was an afterlife as we see above. What about the Pharisees? Paul was a Pharisee and a Christian one at that. What did he believe?

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. (1 Cor. 15:16-18 KJV)

According to Paul is the dead do not rise, then those who had died in Christ had perished. He didn't say they were in Heaven. He didn't say they were in Hell, He didn't say they were floating around in space somewhere. He said if they don't rise from the dead they had perished.

You can post about the Essense all you want, it doesn't change anything.

 

[Butch5]

That sounds a lot like "Neener, neener, neener I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh!"

Makes me think that avatar is a recent photo.

 

[Der Alte]

Makes me think that avatar is a recent photo.

That is "one" I would not shoot for "two" and "three" if I were you.

 

[Butch5]

That is "one" I would not shoot for "two" and "three" if I were you.

What are you talking about?

 

[Der Alte]

I told you, the discussion went nowhere. If you ignored the evidence last time why would I expect you to accept it this time? Why should I spend time writing a post that you will simply reject.

If you did indeed post some "evidence," please link me to that post and I will most assuredly refute it.

Yes, there were Jews who believed as you say. They were the Essenes. However, they're not really mentioned in the Bible.
8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (Acts 23:8 KJV)
The Sadducess didn't believe there was an afterlife as we see above. What about the Pharisees? Paul was a Pharisee and a Christian one at that. What did he believe?

I quoted credible, verifiable, historical evidence. All you are doing is assuming that only Essenes believed in hell. Neither the Jewish Encyclopedia nor Talmud confirm that. There were at least two other groups in Israel at that time, Pharisees and Scribes. Let me know when you can provide evidence for these assumptions/presuppositions

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. (1 Cor. 15:16-18 KJV)

The word translated perished is Apolummi, it occurs 90 times in the NT, of this 68 times, 76%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here are a few of those; killed by snakes, those who are lost, of things be lost, of bursting wineskins, fading beauty, transitory beauty of gold, of earthly food, spoiled honey, of falling hair, losing a member or organ of the body, remnants of food, of wine that has lost its flavor, of sheep gone astray, of a lost son.
So if you want it to mean annihilate, destroy, cease to exist etc. then you must present credible, verifiable evidence to substantiate that view.

According to Paul is the dead do not rise, then those who had died in Christ had perished. He didn't say they were in Heaven. He didn't say they were in Hell, He didn't say they were floating around in space somewhere. He said if they don't rise from the dead they had perished.

Did Paul say there is no resurrection<period>? As for "perished" see Apolummi above. How does your interpretation of Paul deal with these verses.
Matthew 25:41
Matthew 25:46
Mark 9:43-48
Matthew 13:42
Matthew 13:50
Matthew 18:6
Matthew 26:24

You can post about the Essense all you want, it doesn't change anything.

Please let me know when you can provide evidence that anything I posted has anything to do with Essenes alone?

 

[Der Alte]

What are you talking about?

Personal insults.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have been thinking a lot about sound and light lately. I have been thinking of Hell as an absence of sound and light, being cast into the outer darkness without God. Just read the first few verses of John about in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Darkness is the absence of light, He is the Light and the Sound. I have been thinking for years that total separation from God would be much worse as a Hell than a literal fire. Torment would be without Christ, the absence of the Light and Sound.
Does this make sense to anyone? I'm percolating some theories here. I believe the Bible is the inherent Word of God, but I don't know if we could really comprehend what Hell is- total annhilation of the soul (absence of sound and light) and perhaps describing it as fire is the only way himans can begin to understand the continuous torture of being without God. I think about the lines in the Bible about being cast into the outer darkness.

The concept of separation is a common one in the theology of the West. On the flip side of that, the Eastern Churches would point us to the Psalms, "If I make my bed in She'ol, You are there"; that God, because He is God, is always and ever present. There is no way to be outside of God's presence, because He's everywhere--even, in fact, in Hell.

The Christian East, in fact, would suggest that the torment of Hell is God's love, and the fires of Hell are God's love. That Hell isn't a different place from Heaven at all, that rather both the redeemed and the damned are in the same "place" and are exposed universally to the impartial and universal love of God; what makes Heaven heavenly and what makes Hell hellish isn't anything external. For the redeemed to be in the presence of the One who is Himself love is incomprehensible joy, for He loves us and we love Him; for the damned to be in the presence of the One who is Himself love is incomprehensible torment and agony, there is the bitter sting of remorse, regret, and a bitterness toward God. St. Isaac the Syrian, a revered saint from the Syrian Church, compares this bitterness and anguish to being in the presence of a good friend whom we have betrayed, the sting of remorse and the anguish is even more keenly felt even as they love us regardless of our betrayal. In the same way, God's love is impartial, and His love for the damned is like a hot flame that burns.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Butch5]

Personal insults.

That wasn't an insult. I was giving my opinion of your post.

 

[Der Alte]

That wasn't an insult. I was giving my opinion of your post.

Perhaps you should rethink that. I said your argument sounded like a school yard taunt. Your response.

Makes me think that avatar is a recent photo.

My avatar is a picture of me about one year old. You implying that I look like I'm one year old is not an opinion of my post.

 

[Butch5]

Perhaps you should rethink that. I said your argument sounded like a school yard taunt. Your response.

My avatar is a picture of me about one year old. You implying that I look like I'm one year old is not an opinion of my post.

Yeah, it was an opinion. My opinion is that you post was childish. Thus my post.