Almost there
Well-Known Member
- Oct 24, 2017
- 3,571
- 1,152
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Hell
- Thread starter ~Anastasia~
- Start date
- Status
Almost there
Well-Known Member
- Oct 24, 2017
- 3,571
- 1,152
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Both threads were titled "Hell". It was probably a belated warning due to what I posted in the other one.
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,133
- 17,455
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Ah ... next time I do that for someone, I will give it a slightly different name.Both threads were titled "Hell". It was probably a belated warning due to what I posted in the other one.
I hadn't thought of that potential confusion. Sorry about that!
Please do carry on!
Upvote
0
JeremiahsBulldog
Careful, he bites!
1/6
This is in response to the OP in the previous forum, about the place of hell, and some issues brought up by Almost There in this forum.
In the OT, the place of the dead was called "Sheol". Some pagan cultures had similar beliefs about the "land of the dead". In Graeco-Roman culture it was called "Hades". In Germanic culture (Goths, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, etc.), it was called "Hel" (usually spelled with one "l" to distinguish it from the biblical term).
However, the Israelites rejected other pagan beliefs about the afterlife. They did not accept special places of fiery punishment, like the Graeco-Roman "Tartarus", or special places of happiness for heroes, like the Graeco-Roman "Elysium" and the Germanic "Valhalla". For the Jews, every soul, good or bad, went to Sheol.
Nevertheless, Isrealite-Jewish tradition did accept a division between (a) sinners and (b) righteous (and children), within Sheol. Just as in this world, bad people are in jail and good ones are free (ideally); so in Sheol there was a division between sinners and saints.
Paradise, however, was lost to us after Adam's fall, and would not be accessible again until Christ's resurrection.
"Sheol" is translated in the KJV (the model for most English translations) as:
"grave" 31 times. (For all the verses, see this link ; Click on the little numbers beside the translated word to see the original word plus its definition. The same for the following links).
"hell" from Germanic "hel", 31 times. (link ).
"pit" 3 times. (link ).
The place of hell was traditionally thought to be below the earth. Of course this could be taken symbolically. Today, we would say it's in another realm or dimension. More theologically, we say that Sheol, which is Hades (more on that below), as well as Paradise, are within God's Glory/Grace/Uncreated Divine Energy.
The very fact that there is a "place of the dead" shows that there is not annihilation. "Annihilation" means literally to turn something into nothing. If an object completely disappears, it doesn't need any place at all.
This is in response to the OP in the previous forum, about the place of hell, and some issues brought up by Almost There in this forum.
In the OT, the place of the dead was called "Sheol". Some pagan cultures had similar beliefs about the "land of the dead". In Graeco-Roman culture it was called "Hades". In Germanic culture (Goths, Vikings, Anglo-Saxons, etc.), it was called "Hel" (usually spelled with one "l" to distinguish it from the biblical term).
However, the Israelites rejected other pagan beliefs about the afterlife. They did not accept special places of fiery punishment, like the Graeco-Roman "Tartarus", or special places of happiness for heroes, like the Graeco-Roman "Elysium" and the Germanic "Valhalla". For the Jews, every soul, good or bad, went to Sheol.
Nevertheless, Isrealite-Jewish tradition did accept a division between (a) sinners and (b) righteous (and children), within Sheol. Just as in this world, bad people are in jail and good ones are free (ideally); so in Sheol there was a division between sinners and saints.
Paradise, however, was lost to us after Adam's fall, and would not be accessible again until Christ's resurrection.
"Sheol" is translated in the KJV (the model for most English translations) as:
"grave" 31 times. (For all the verses, see this link ; Click on the little numbers beside the translated word to see the original word plus its definition. The same for the following links).
"hell" from Germanic "hel", 31 times. (link ).
"pit" 3 times. (link ).
The place of hell was traditionally thought to be below the earth. Of course this could be taken symbolically. Today, we would say it's in another realm or dimension. More theologically, we say that Sheol, which is Hades (more on that below), as well as Paradise, are within God's Glory/Grace/Uncreated Divine Energy.
The very fact that there is a "place of the dead" shows that there is not annihilation. "Annihilation" means literally to turn something into nothing. If an object completely disappears, it doesn't need any place at all.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JeremiahsBulldog
Careful, he bites!
2/6
Some of Sheol's characteristics:
Its is not the same as destruction or annihilation. There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for these ideas-- Abbadon. It appears 6 times in the OT and 1 time in the NT. (ot link ) (nt link ).
"Sheol" appears in lists together with "Abbadon" 3 times in the OT. If they were the same thing, it would be redundant to list them both. (ot link link link ).
Sheol can be visited. The Greek equivalent, Hades was visited by Odysseus in the Odyssey. There, he met dead warriors from the Trojan war. In the Bible, Jacob reacted to the false news of his son Joseph's death by saying, "I will go down to Sheol, to my son" (link ). He wouldn't have said that if he assumed that death means annihilation.
Some of Sheol's characteristics:
Its is not the same as destruction or annihilation. There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for these ideas-- Abbadon. It appears 6 times in the OT and 1 time in the NT. (ot link ) (nt link ).
"Sheol" appears in lists together with "Abbadon" 3 times in the OT. If they were the same thing, it would be redundant to list them both. (ot link link link ).
Sheol can be visited. The Greek equivalent, Hades was visited by Odysseus in the Odyssey. There, he met dead warriors from the Trojan war. In the Bible, Jacob reacted to the false news of his son Joseph's death by saying, "I will go down to Sheol, to my son" (link ). He wouldn't have said that if he assumed that death means annihilation.
Upvote
0
JeremiahsBulldog
Careful, he bites!
3/6
In the NT, which was written in Greek, "Sheol" was replaced by its Greek equivalent, "Hades".
"Hades" is translated in the KJV as:
"grave" 1 time. (link ).
"hell" 10 times. (link ).
Concerning Christ's parables; a parable is simply a story, real or fictional, that compares one thing symbolically with another. (link ). So parables need not be false. In fact, the church fathers believed that Christ's parables were based on real stories.
As for the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, St. Irenaeus of Lyons not only wrote that the story was true, but gave the rich man's name as "Dives", apparently from an old tradition (early Christians knew more about Biblical times than just what's recorded in the Bible). (See the ref in: Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXXIV, verse 1 ).
In this story, Hades, the Greek equivalent of Sheol, is usually translated in English as "hell". So what Christ is saying is, that Dives is in Sheol, and is suffering. He did not say that Dives was annihilated. Now, if the common belief in Christ's time was annihilation after death, His listeners would have found His parable completely useless, even laughable. I don't think our Lord said things just to make people laugh. On the other hand, if He Himself knew that there is annihilation after death, He would be spreading false stories about Sheol. I don't believe Christ spreads false doctrine either.
In the NT, which was written in Greek, "Sheol" was replaced by its Greek equivalent, "Hades".
"Hades" is translated in the KJV as:
"grave" 1 time. (link ).
"hell" 10 times. (link ).
Concerning Christ's parables; a parable is simply a story, real or fictional, that compares one thing symbolically with another. (link ). So parables need not be false. In fact, the church fathers believed that Christ's parables were based on real stories.
As for the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, St. Irenaeus of Lyons not only wrote that the story was true, but gave the rich man's name as "Dives", apparently from an old tradition (early Christians knew more about Biblical times than just what's recorded in the Bible). (See the ref in: Against Heresies, Book II, Chapter XXXIV, verse 1 ).
In this story, Hades, the Greek equivalent of Sheol, is usually translated in English as "hell". So what Christ is saying is, that Dives is in Sheol, and is suffering. He did not say that Dives was annihilated. Now, if the common belief in Christ's time was annihilation after death, His listeners would have found His parable completely useless, even laughable. I don't think our Lord said things just to make people laugh. On the other hand, if He Himself knew that there is annihilation after death, He would be spreading false stories about Sheol. I don't believe Christ spreads false doctrine either.
Upvote
0
JeremiahsBulldog
Careful, he bites!
4/6
With Christ's death and resurrection, several things changed. Upon His death, His soul, like everyone else's, was taken by the Devil to Sheol/Hades. But both His body and His soul are united to His divinity. So in Sheol, He revealed His divinity, took the Devil captive, and preached to those imprisoned there (1 Pt 3:19 ). He tnen rescued the righteous souls, an event which was glimpsed by some living people ( Matthew 27:51-53 ). He took those souls to Paradise, which is now once again accessible ( Luke 23:43 ). Then, of course, He rose from the dead to give us a chance to enter Paradise as well. Paradise, like Sheol/Hades, is "somewhere" within God's uncreated Glory/Grace/Energy.
-------
At Christ's Second Coming, the dead, both saints and sinners, shall be resurrected. ( 1 Th 4:16-17 ). BTW, in this passage, death and Sheol/Hades/ are both listed, which means that they are not the same thing.
After the resurrection comes the Last Judgement (Rev 20:12-13 ).
Then God's Uncreated Divine Glory/Grace/Energy will subsume the Heavens, Paradise, the Earth, and Sheol/Hades, to become all in all ( 1 Cor 15:24-28; Rev 20:9-21:27 ).
To the righteous, this will be experienced as new Heavens, Earth, and Jerusalem ( Rev 21 ).
To sinners, this will be experienced as a Lake of Fire. ( Rev 20:15 ).
In Christ's parables, the future Lake of Fire is symbolized by "Gehenna". This refers to the Valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem. It served as the city's garbage dump. In the middle, a constant bonfire was kept, and people dumped their garbage there to be burned.
"Gehenna" is translated in the KJV as:
"hell" 9 times. (link ).
"hellfire" 3 times. (link ).
But when an object is burned, it doesn't completely disappear. There are ashes. So, when a sinner goes to the Lake of Fire, his sins are burned up, but his soul remains. ( Mat 9:43-48 ).
With Christ's death and resurrection, several things changed. Upon His death, His soul, like everyone else's, was taken by the Devil to Sheol/Hades. But both His body and His soul are united to His divinity. So in Sheol, He revealed His divinity, took the Devil captive, and preached to those imprisoned there (1 Pt 3:19 ). He tnen rescued the righteous souls, an event which was glimpsed by some living people ( Matthew 27:51-53 ). He took those souls to Paradise, which is now once again accessible ( Luke 23:43 ). Then, of course, He rose from the dead to give us a chance to enter Paradise as well. Paradise, like Sheol/Hades, is "somewhere" within God's uncreated Glory/Grace/Energy.
-------
At Christ's Second Coming, the dead, both saints and sinners, shall be resurrected. ( 1 Th 4:16-17 ). BTW, in this passage, death and Sheol/Hades/ are both listed, which means that they are not the same thing.
After the resurrection comes the Last Judgement (Rev 20:12-13 ).
Then God's Uncreated Divine Glory/Grace/Energy will subsume the Heavens, Paradise, the Earth, and Sheol/Hades, to become all in all ( 1 Cor 15:24-28; Rev 20:9-21:27 ).
To the righteous, this will be experienced as new Heavens, Earth, and Jerusalem ( Rev 21 ).
To sinners, this will be experienced as a Lake of Fire. ( Rev 20:15 ).
In Christ's parables, the future Lake of Fire is symbolized by "Gehenna". This refers to the Valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem. It served as the city's garbage dump. In the middle, a constant bonfire was kept, and people dumped their garbage there to be burned.
"Gehenna" is translated in the KJV as:
"hell" 9 times. (link ).
"hellfire" 3 times. (link ).
But when an object is burned, it doesn't completely disappear. There are ashes. So, when a sinner goes to the Lake of Fire, his sins are burned up, but his soul remains. ( Mat 9:43-48 ).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JeremiahsBulldog
Careful, he bites!
5/6
At present, those who die baptised and at least in repentance go to Paradise. Everyone else goes to Sheol/Hades. But the church fathers made a distinction between (a) those who died unrepentent and with serious sins, and (b) those who repented at the last moment but had no time to do good deeds, or did plenty of good and also some small sins which remained unrepented, and might be saved by God's mercy at the Last Judgement, and (c) also unbaptised babies who die? Lets not forget what Christ said about all children (Mat 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16 ). Thus, it appears there continues to be a division within Sheol/Hades. For this reason, and because Paradise and Sheol/Hades are not permanent, the Church prays for all the dead. Those who'll never be saved (category (a) above) might see their sufferings lessened; those in categories (b) and (c) will certainly benefit from God's mercy on Judgement Day, which is what we pray for; and even the saints in Paradise might experience more joy.
-------
In the mediaeval West, after the Great Schism, the universities were started. From them came the first university-grad theologians and philosophers. They were called "Scholastics" (literally, "Schoolmen"). They studied the Bible, Church prayers, and the fathers, not in a spirit of prayer and humility, but in a spirit of rationalism, like scientists studying bacteria. As a result, they came up with some new ideas (always a no-no in Christian theology). Among them were the following:
(1) Paradise, and the post-Judgement new Heaven/Earth/Jerusalem were merged, to become "Heaven", which was permanent (no change after Judgement Day).
(2) Sheol/Hades, and the post-Judgement Lake of Fire were merged, into "Hell", which was also permanent.
Recognizing the patristic distinction between categories (a), (b), and (c) above, they did two more things:
(3) For barely-repentant souls ((b) above) they invented "Purgatory". It is temporary (will be abolished on Judgement Day). "Purgatory" means "the Cleansing-Place" in Latin. Those who just repented at death, will go there to suffer (each for a different amount of time) until God is satisfied that they have cleansed themselves of their small sins. Then, God will allow them to join the already-existing "Heaven". On Judgement Day, Purgatory will be abolished, and those still in it will be allowed to go to the already-existing, permanent "Heaven". Note that God's mercy is now out of the picture. Once this belief was established, the prayers for the dead were reinterpreted to benefit mostly or only those in Purgatory.
(4) For infants who died unbaptized, there was "Limbo". "Limbo" means "Boundary" in Latin-- i. e. the boundary between "Hell" and "Heaven". Also temporary. There, infants experience neither the sufferings of "Hell" nor the joys of "Heaven". On Judgement Day, it too will be abolished, and all unbaptized infants will join the permanent "Heaven" already in progress.
At present, those who die baptised and at least in repentance go to Paradise. Everyone else goes to Sheol/Hades. But the church fathers made a distinction between (a) those who died unrepentent and with serious sins, and (b) those who repented at the last moment but had no time to do good deeds, or did plenty of good and also some small sins which remained unrepented, and might be saved by God's mercy at the Last Judgement, and (c) also unbaptised babies who die? Lets not forget what Christ said about all children (Mat 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16 ). Thus, it appears there continues to be a division within Sheol/Hades. For this reason, and because Paradise and Sheol/Hades are not permanent, the Church prays for all the dead. Those who'll never be saved (category (a) above) might see their sufferings lessened; those in categories (b) and (c) will certainly benefit from God's mercy on Judgement Day, which is what we pray for; and even the saints in Paradise might experience more joy.
-------
In the mediaeval West, after the Great Schism, the universities were started. From them came the first university-grad theologians and philosophers. They were called "Scholastics" (literally, "Schoolmen"). They studied the Bible, Church prayers, and the fathers, not in a spirit of prayer and humility, but in a spirit of rationalism, like scientists studying bacteria. As a result, they came up with some new ideas (always a no-no in Christian theology). Among them were the following:
(1) Paradise, and the post-Judgement new Heaven/Earth/Jerusalem were merged, to become "Heaven", which was permanent (no change after Judgement Day).
(2) Sheol/Hades, and the post-Judgement Lake of Fire were merged, into "Hell", which was also permanent.
Recognizing the patristic distinction between categories (a), (b), and (c) above, they did two more things:
(3) For barely-repentant souls ((b) above) they invented "Purgatory". It is temporary (will be abolished on Judgement Day). "Purgatory" means "the Cleansing-Place" in Latin. Those who just repented at death, will go there to suffer (each for a different amount of time) until God is satisfied that they have cleansed themselves of their small sins. Then, God will allow them to join the already-existing "Heaven". On Judgement Day, Purgatory will be abolished, and those still in it will be allowed to go to the already-existing, permanent "Heaven". Note that God's mercy is now out of the picture. Once this belief was established, the prayers for the dead were reinterpreted to benefit mostly or only those in Purgatory.
(4) For infants who died unbaptized, there was "Limbo". "Limbo" means "Boundary" in Latin-- i. e. the boundary between "Hell" and "Heaven". Also temporary. There, infants experience neither the sufferings of "Hell" nor the joys of "Heaven". On Judgement Day, it too will be abolished, and all unbaptized infants will join the permanent "Heaven" already in progress.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JeremiahsBulldog
Careful, he bites!
6/6
When the Protestants appeared, they did the following:
(1) They accepted the RC permanent "Heaven".
(2) They accepted the RC permanent "Hell". This is why the KJV translates every afterlife term by "Hell".
(3) They rejected "Purgatory". They also rejected prayers for the dead, which they understood in the RC way.
(4) They rejected "Limbo". Then they interpreted Christ's saying about children (Mat 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16 ) to mean that unbaptized babies go directly to the permanent "Heaven".
The EOC rejects both the RC and the Protestant innovations.
When the Protestants appeared, they did the following:
(1) They accepted the RC permanent "Heaven".
(2) They accepted the RC permanent "Hell". This is why the KJV translates every afterlife term by "Hell".
(3) They rejected "Purgatory". They also rejected prayers for the dead, which they understood in the RC way.
(4) They rejected "Limbo". Then they interpreted Christ's saying about children (Mat 19:14; Mark 10:14; Luke 18:16 ) to mean that unbaptized babies go directly to the permanent "Heaven".
The EOC rejects both the RC and the Protestant innovations.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jul 10, 2016
- 5,459
- 2,197
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
"This specious argument goes back at least to Augustine. As has long ago been said, however, due to its unreasonableness, it ought never be heard again."
Augustine was rather ignorant of Greek.
For some other parallels in Scripture consider:
Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life's justifying."
Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also, through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted just."
1 Cor.15:22 AS in Adam ALL die SO ALSO in Christ shall ALL be made alive.
1 Cor.15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER: 32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…
David Burnfield makes an interesting point re Matthew 25:46:
"None of the sins listed in [the context of] Matt.25:46 can be considered blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."
He quotes Mt.12:31:
"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven." (NASB)
And emphasizes the words "any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people".
He then says "If we can believe what Christ tells us, then the 'only' sin that is 'not' forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which obviously does not include the sins listed in Matt.25:34-44."
Then he quotes from Jan Bonda's book "The One Purpose of God...":
"Verse...46, in particular, has always been cited as undeniable proof that Jesus taught eternal punishment. Yet it is clear that the sins Jesus listed in this passage do not constitute the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Assuming Jesus did not utter this word with the intention of contradicting what he said moments before [Matt 12:31], we must accept that the sins mentioned in this passage [Matt 25:46] will eventually be forgiven. This means, however strange it may sound to us, that this statement of Jesus about eternal punishment is not the final word for those who are condemned."
(pg 220-221, Patristic Universalism: An Alternative To The Traditional View of Divine Judgement, 2nd ed, 2016, by David Burnfield)
Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin
The NT translation of Eastern Orthodox scholar Bentley Hart does not use the words "eternal" or "everlasting" at Mt.25:46, but instead reads "chastening of that Age" & "life of that Age". (The New Testament: A Translation, 2017, Yale University Press).
Many other versions do likewise, as listed here:
Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?
Some literal translations of Mt.25:46 have:
Young‘s Literal Translation: ―punishment age-during.
Rotherham Translation: ―age-abiding correction.
Weymouth Translation: ―punishment of the ages.
Concordant Literal Translation: ―chastening eonian."
eonian, "αἰώνιος...lasting for an age...partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting... (also used of past time, or past and future as well) Derivation: from G165;" G166 αἰώνιος - Strong's Greek Lexicon
"2851. kolasis...Short Definition: chastisement, punishment..."
"In the late 2nd century/early 3rd century, Clement of Alexandria clearly distinguished between kólasis and timoria: “For there are partial corrections [padeiai] which are called chastisements [kólasis], which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord’s people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not punish [timoria], for punishment [timoria] is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually” (Strom. 7.16)."
https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/09/15/from-here-to-eternity-how-long-is-forever/
The "eternal" (eonian) fire that burned Sodom went out long ago:
Jude 1:7 As Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them in like manner to these committing ultra-prostitution, and coming away after other flesh, are lying before us, a specimen, experiencing the justice of fire eonian."
The fire wasn't eternal & neither is the "eternal fire" or punishment in Mt.25:41,46.
As regards the fate of the Jewish people, earlier in the same gospel of Saint Matthew Jesus' word does correct them re the false teachings of endless torments and annihilation, as follows:
Mt.1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt.2:6b ...my people Israel.
That includes the murderous Pharisees, Judas Iscariot & all other Jews. And since God is no respecter of person, the Gentiles will also be saved, as the Scriptures reveal.
Considering the Greek word kolasis ("punishment", Mt.25:46, KJV) can refer to a corrective punishment, that should tell the reader of Matthew 25:46 what the possible duration of aionios ("everlasting", KJV) is & that it may refer to a finite punishment. Why? Because since if is corrective, it is with the purpose of bringing the person corrected to salvation. Once saved the person no longer has need of such a punishment & it ends. So it isn't "everlasting". Therefore this passage could just as easily support universalism as anything else.
From a review of a book by Ilaria Ramelli, namely The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp):
"...in a passage in Origen in which he speaks of “life after aionios life” (160). As a native speaker of Greek he does not see a contradiction in such phrasing; that is because aionios life does not mean “unending, eternal life,” but rather “life of the next age.” Likewise the Bible uses the word kolasis to describe the punishment of the age to come. Aristotle distinguished kolasis from timoria, the latter referring to punishment inflicted “in the interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” On the other hand, kolasis refers to correction, it “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer” (quoted at 32). Thus Plato can affirm that it is good to be punished (to undergo kolasis), because in this way a person is made better (ibid.). This distinction survived even past the time of the writing of the New Testament, since Clement of Alexandria affirms that God does not timoreitai, punish for retribution, but he does kolazei, correct sinners (127)."
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena | Nemes | Journal of Analytic Theology
"Augustine raised the argument that since aionios in Mt. 25:46 referred to both life and punishment, it had to carry the same duration in both cases. However, he failed to consider that the duration of aionios is determined by the subject to which it refers. For example, when aionios referred to the duration of Jonah’s entrapment in the fish, it was limited to three days. To a slave, aionios referred to his life span. To the Aaronic priesthood, it referred to the generation preceding the Melchizedek priesthood. To Solomon’s temple, it referred to 400 years. To God it encompasses and transcends time altogether."
"Thus, the word cannot have a set value. It is a relative term and its duration depends upon that with which it is associated. It is similar to what “tall” is to height. The size of a tall building can be 300 feet, a tall man six feet, and a tall dog three feet. Black Beauty was a great horse, Abraham Lincoln a great man, and Yahweh the GREAT God. Though God is called “great,” the word “great” is neither eternal nor divine. The horse is still a horse. An adjective relates to the noun it modifies. In relation to God, “great” becomes GREAT only because of who and what God is. This silences the contention that aion must always mean forever because it modifies God. God is described as the God of Israel and the God of Abraham. This does not mean He is not the God of Gentiles, or the God of you and me. Though He is called the God of the “ages,” He nonetheless remains the God who transcends the ages."
"In addition, Augustine’s reasoning does not hold up in light of Ro. 16:25, 26 and Hab. 3:6. Here, in both cases, the same word is used twice—with God and with something temporal. “In accord with the revelation of a secret hushed in times eonian, yet manifested now…according to the injunction of the eonian God” (Ro. 16:25, 26 CLT). An eonian secret revealed at some point cannot be eternal even though it is revealed by the eonian God. Eonian does not make God eternal, but God makes eonian eternal. “And the everlasting mountains were scattered.…His ways are everlasting” (Hab. 3:6). Mountains are not eternal, though they will last a very long time. God’s ways however, are eternal, because He is eternal."
Eternity in the Bible by Gerry Beauchemin – Hope Beyond Hell
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
Jude 7 speaks of the fire that destroyed Sodom as an example of "aionion fire" (the same words aionion fire used in Mt.25:41, compare v.46). Did Sodom burn forever?
Philo was contemporary with Christ & we have this translation of his words which use the same words Christ used at Mt.25:46:
"It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment [kolasis aiónios] from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct." Philo: Appendix 2: Fragments
In the year 544 A.D. the emperor Justinian wrote a letter:
"It is conceded that the half-heathen emperor held to the idea of endless misery, for he proceeds not only to defend, but to define the doctrine.2 He does not merely say, "We believe in aionion kolasin," for that was just what Origen himself taught. Nor does he say "the word aionion has been misunderstood; it denotes endless duration," as he would have said, had there been such a disagreement. But, writing in Greek, with all the words of that abundant language from which to choose, he says: "The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked." If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration.
Chapter 21 - Unsuccessful Attempts to Suppress Universalism
If Christ meant "endless" punishment at Mt.25:46, why use the ambiguous aionios? Why not instead use the word aperantos ("endless"; 1 Timothy 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? The answer seems obvious.
Early Church Father universalists who were Greek scholars & many others of the time did not see Mt.25:46 contradicting their belief:
"The first Christians, it will be seen, said in their creeds, "I believe in the æonian life;" later, they modified the phrase "æonian life," to "the life of the coming æon," showing that the phrases are equivalent. But not a word of endless punishment. "The life of the age to come" was the first Christian creed, and later, Origen himself (an Early Church Father universalist) declares his belief in æonian punishment, and in æonian life beyond. How, then, could æonian punishment have been regarded as endless?"
Another Aionios Thread - These Things Go On Forever
"Adolph Deissman gives this account: "Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: 'I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty...' If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?" "
Chapter Nine
"Walvoord appeals to Matthew 25:46 (“And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian,” CV), declaring that if the state of the blessed is eternal, as expressed by this word, there is no logical reason for giving limited duration to punishment."
"This specious argument goes back at least to Augustine. As has long ago been said, however, due to its unreasonableness, it ought never be heard again. From the fact that the life of the just nations and the chastening of the unjust nations are herein described by the same adjective, descriptive of duration, it does not follow that the latter group of nations, therefore, will be subjected to endless punishment. The argument assumes what is at issue by presuming that the life of the just, here, is termed an endless life. Simply because, on certain grounds, the life of those persons comprising the just nations will prove to be endless, it does not follow that the blessing of life afforded here to any such nations is therefore that of endless duration. It is as unreasonable to assume that eonian life doubtlessly signifies endless life as it would be to claim that youthful life actually signifies aged life, simply because our presuppositions and predilections may dictate such a conclusion."
"Professor Tayler Lewis (who was not a universalist) in commenting on what he calls the Olamic or Aeonian words of the Scripture, affirms that “they denote . . . the world [i.e., in the sense of duration] in time, or as a time-existence” (i.e., the “life” of the object thus described or delineated). He insists that these words are, in themselves, wholly indefinite (even though he conceives that, in Matthew 25:46, the scene is one of “finality”). Hence, concerning aiõnios, he states: “It would be more in accordance with the plainest etymological usage to give it simply the sense of olamic or aeonic, or to regard it as denoting, like the Jewish olam habba, the world [i.e., duration] to come."
“ ‘These shall go away into the punishment [the restraint, imprisonment] of the world to come, and these into the life of the world to come.’ That is all we can etymologically or exegetically make of the word in this passage. And so is it ever in the Old Syriac Version [i.e., the Peshito], where the one [i.e., uniform] rendering is still more unmistakably clear: ‘These shall go away to the pain of the olam, and these to the life of the olam’–the world to come.”
"...It is simply contrary to historical fact to suggest that the essence of these time expressions is that of endless duration. As Thomas De Quincey, the nineteenth century essayist and literary critic states: “All this speculation, first and last, is pure nonsense. Aiõnios does not mean ‘eternal,’ neither does it mean of limited duration . . . . What is an aiõn? The duration or cycle of existence which belongs to any object, not individually of itself, but universally, in right of its genius [i.e., inherent nature] . . . . The exact amount of the duration expressed by an aiõn depends altogether upon the particular subject which yields the aiõn.” "
"...Likewise, the Presbyterian Bible scholar, M. R. Vincent, in his extensive note on aiõn/aiõnios states: “Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting.” "
"...not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version).
"In this response to your “deeply troubled” encounter with the Concordant Version, I have principally sought not to prove my position, but to open a door to its consideration; a door of further inquiry, with a view toward your attaining an awareness of the grace of God in truth, even as of the purpose of the eons, which He makes in Christ Jesus, our Lord (Eph.3:11). May our God and Father be pleased to use this writing unto such an end."
Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three
For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?
Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 10, 2016
- 5,459
- 2,197
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Anastasia,
If that is the official position, many EO ignore it and believe in universalism anyway. (Such as EO religious scholar & author David Bentley Hart). Likewise in the RCC, & other "churches".
Would you say it is officially allowed in the EO "church" to believe some or most people will go to hell forever?
Are the OO, Coptic/Egyptian, Ethiopian & other "Eastern" churches of the same opinion as EO on this subject?
Upvote
0
- Jul 10, 2016
- 5,459
- 2,197
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
IMO there is no "eternity as the duration" of "hell" in any of those passages, nor anywhere else in the Scriptures. For example Luke 16:
Nothing there denies the possibility of repentance & salvation to any who might end up in the lake of fire. In Rev.20:11-15 those in Hades get out of Hades, so Hades (Lk.16:19-31) is not a place of unending torments.
Even of the rich man in Hades (Lk.16:19-31) it is not stated how long his torments would last while there. Or denied that they could end while still there. Nor is it denied he could be saved while still in Hades. The rich man's Saviour is in Hades:
"If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in the nether-world (Sheol = Hades), behold, Thou art there." (Psalm 139:8)
The rich man is called "son" (literally, "child") :
Lk.16:25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things
"Here, too, was one who, even in Hades, was recognised as being, now more truly than he had been in his life, a “child” or “son of Abraham.” (Comp. Luke 19:9.) The word used is the same, in its tone of pity and tenderness, as that which the father used to the elder son in the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:31), which our Lord addressed to the man sick of the palsy (Matthew 9:2), or to His own disciples (John 13:33)." Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
The rich man in Hades is receiving the Word of Truth from Abraham. If not to lead those there to repentance & salvation, why would anyone in Hades be receiving such truths.
When it is implied that the rich man is where he is due to his lack of compassion for his fellow man, in particular Lazarus, he responds positively by turning his attention from himself to his brethren still alive & requests that they be warned about Hades. Is the rich man turning from his selfishness & showing concern for others?
The story speaks of a great gulf fixed stopping the transfer of persons from one place to the other place. It does not say this gulf will remain in place forever. Only that at that moment in time it was so. Possibly the chasm barrier refers to the unrepentant state of those in Hades, & that once they repent the barrier stopping any individual from leaving is removed. Nor does the passage deny the possibility of salvation to the rich man in Hades while he remains there.
" “And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” "
" "So even if we made the mistake of trying to extract from the details of this parable a position on the issue of whether there will be further chances, there still wouldn’t be much cause for taking this passage as supporting the doctrine of no further chances with any force at all. For as long as the [one] who believes in further chances sensibly allows for the possibility that, while punishment is occurring, those suffering from it can’t just end it any time they want, she can make perfectly good sense of the words this parable puts into the mouth of Father Abraham. After all, if a road has been covered with deep enough snow drifts, we’ll tell someone who must drive on that stretch of road to get to where we are, “You cannot cross over from there to us.” We’ll say this quite properly and truthfully, even if we know full well that the road will be cleared in a few days, or that, in a great enough emergency, a helicopter could be used to get across to us even today, if, say, we’re at a hospital. [But doesn’t that show that there is a sense, then, in which they can cross over to us? Yes, there’s a perfectly good sense in which they can, and a perfectly good sense in which they cannot. For enlightening and accessible explanations of the meaning of “can” and related words, I recommend Angelica Kratzer’s “What ‘Must’ and ‘Can’ Must and Can Mean” (Linguistics and Philosophy 1 (1977): pp. 337-355) and example 6 (“Relative Modality”) of David Lewis’s “Scorekeeping in a Language Game” (Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1979): pp. 339-359.]"
The duration, nature, intensity & purpose of the torments the rich man was suffering are not revealed in this story. His torments there could have lasted less than 5 minutes.
Luke 16:19-31 rich man in "hell"
Have you been decieved by your Bible translation?
For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46
If endless punishment were true & victims of infanticide all go to heaven
Upvote
0
Almost there
Well-Known Member
- Oct 24, 2017
- 3,571
- 1,152
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Is there a reader's digest version of this post? I don't know which side you're on based on scanning that.
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,133
- 17,455
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Rather than David Bentley Hart, the Saints and the consensus of the Fathers are the better place to look for what we believe, generally speaking.
I don't really know about Catholics, Coptics, Ethiopians, and others. I would expect that they believe similar to us, which I would say we absolutely must affirm the POSSIBILITY of eternal condemnation.
I do think it's important to realize that it's not that God shuts the door on any possibility of reconciliation. It's not about God purposely and vindictively damning someone forever.
But man has free will. Whether he may repent or be changed after death when he has died and faced judgement in a state of hating God? We do not know whether this is possible. Some say flatly no. Some say it might be. We do not know in order to give a dogmatic answer.
God is love. God will restore all things. But God may allow the free will of created men (and angels?) to remain opposed to Him.
It is nearly inconceivable that anyone would choose to do so, faced with all of this. But then it is not so much a matter of simple choice of belief, but also of what kind of beings are we? If someone so actively hates the good all their lives, perhaps they have made themselves too evil to be able or want to repent?
I'm mostly speculating. And that's mostly all we can do.
It's really simple. We may HOPE for the ultimate salvation of any, many, even most or all. But we have no such assurance.
May EO embrace that hope personally to the degree they believe it? I suppose they can, though they ought not teach it. How can we in conscience reassure people to neglect their salvation, based on the hope they will be saved anyway? Christ said no such thing, so their blood could ultimately be on our hands.
May we likewise believe some will remain in torment? Certainly we may (though if the person relishes this thought, that would point to a serious heart issue needing to be resolved!).
Neither position will get us thrown out of the Church. But we should be extremely careful making public statements or teaching about the judgement of God of individuals and matters we have not been given to know, especially those of the highest eternal significance.
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,133
- 17,455
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm pretty sure he's saying that any torment or hell after death is temporary and is putting forth ultimate universal reconciliation. If that helps.
ETA: However, for the sake of clarity on what we believe regarding this - thank you @ArmyMatt
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 26, 2007
- 41,560
- 20,079
- 41
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
right, unfortunately, he is basing his reading on DBH and his own opinion concerning eschatology. our saints say otherwise.
Upvote
0
- Dec 1, 2013
- 31,133
- 17,455
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Almost there
Well-Known Member
- Oct 24, 2017
- 3,571
- 1,152
- 60
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I'm thinking of starting a thread somewhere about long posts. The reason people read an entire Dave Barry article or articles from famous commentators is that they have proven they are skilled writers and have earned enough respect for us to read their information, knowing communication will take place. Us lay people should never expect people to march through multiple paragraphs.
It's also very difficult to be brief, but effective.
I remember reading an old letter from the 19th century that ended with the words, "sorry for the length of this letter but I didn't have time to write a shorter one."
Upvote
0
- Jul 10, 2016
- 5,459
- 2,197
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Because there's "hell to pay" if they do. And it is not encouraging people to neglect their salvation, but to have a Biblical, just, loving view of Who God really is.
Because if you don't, there are many millions who have already left the church over what they see as a monstrous hypocritical characterization of a God Who is out of one side of the mouth presented as Love Omnipotent & the other side as something infinitely worse than Hitler, Bin Laden & Satan combined.
Because there are many millions more who refuse to even consider the claims of such a Christ.
What of the blood of those i've spoken of above?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 26, 2007
- 41,560
- 20,079
- 41
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
except that's not what we profess. that argument might work against a Calvinist, but not us. and if the truth of the eternity of hell offends people, that is not the Church's problem.
and your arguments here are based on emotion, not what Scripture or the Fathers say.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
