how do people who believe in eternal torture in fire

[mkgal1]

What the early church taught (and the Orthodox church continue to teach) about Hades:



This event, known as the Harrowing of Hades, was taught from the very beginning of the Church. St. Melito of Sardis (died ca 180) in Homily on the Passion; Tertullian in A Treatise on the Soul, 55, Hippolytus in Treatise on Christ and Anti-Christ , Origen in Against Celsus, 2:43, and, later, St. Ambrose (died 397) all wrote of the Harrowing of Hell.~The Resurrection | Icon of Victory

 

[Der Alte]

First of all, the only place in the Old Testament where the correct usage of “eternity” is used (transliterated – ad)is in Isaiah 57:15. “For thus says the High and Lofty One Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy: ‘I dwell in the high and holy place, with him who has a contrite and humble spirit, To revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.’” Eternity here means: “continued duration, always or perpetually. It is translated 41 times as ever; twice as everlasting; once as end; once as old; once as evermore; and once as perpetually.” (Strong's Concordance)

Strong's is a concordance not a lexicon therefore I would not rely on Strong's for the correct definition of words. Also Strong's has been found to have about 15,000 errors or omissions. I have both Brown, Driver, Briggs Hebrew lexicon and Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker Greek lexicon in my personal library. So if you wish to discuss the "correct" definition of Bible words those are the final authorities for me.

In most of these usages, God, His power or our salvation is described. Keep in mind, He inhabits eternity. And btw, technically, eternity goes in both directions with no beginning and no end, therefore only God inhabits eternity and He invites us into His realm. So we enter and move forward. Everything on earth is temporal and even the physical heavens as well. Obviously, Hades, the Lake of Fire did not always exist, therefore it is not eternal, but temporal and so will pass away as all former things will be destroyed. Death, Evil, Sin, Hades will pass away and be destroyed, Satan and his demonic horde as well – temporal.

Mostly opinion for which you cited no sources and which does not address the point I made..

This Hebrew word, “ad” is translated three different ways in this verse: “He stood, and measured the earth: He beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow; His ways are everlasting.” Hab. 3:6 KJV Are mountains and hills everlasting or perpetual? No. In other versions, eternal is used. Does everlasting mean the same as eternal? Not really, In the English language we understand everlasting and forever to mean eternal, but mountains aren’t eternal. His ways are eternal but mountains will pass away.So to answer your question, here are some examples where these words represent God’s domain, our salvation:

Nice try but does not address my point.

Punish comes from kolasis which means cutting off so (cutting off of the ages and eternal life) would give us a better understanding of this verse.

I omitted most of your proof texts. I have the lexicons I don't require instruction on the meaning of either Greek or Hebrew words.

Perish and destroy mean to utterly ruin, consume; demolish; to put an end to; to kill. Perish sometimes means lost or no longer fit for intended us, or marred, but when referring to the death of both body and soul, the first definition is correctly represented.

Not necessarily, it depends on which Greek or Hebrew words is being translated.

Really, the burning bush and Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego? We have the glory of God’s fire and then a miracle of God’s protection in fire to compare to punishment in the Lake of Fire?

Perhaps you should reread my post and address what I actually said rather than a strawman.

Is the angel of death God’s angel or is he Satan’s? God sends judgment upon the earth, the four horsemen. It appears to me that these are God’s angels who inflict judgment and blow the trumpets and pour the bowels out. I do not think they will be destroyed or punished. However death itself and Hades (a place) will be destroyed.

Where did I say or imply that the angels in Revelation were not God's angels?

Exactly, as He destroyed the earth once, He put an end to those people. It is His prerogative to have them suffer for eons of time in Hades and then destroy them in the Lake of Fire or to just put an end to them within hours. Either way, God is not glorified in these acts of punishment. He is grieved, but He is a God of justice and sin needs to be fairly judged.

And how have I said any different? I have been on this forum for more than 1.5 decades and I have addressed these questions and issues countless times. I could link to any number of posts which address everything you posted but I'll start with a post in this thread where I address the topic of hell. My post #145 this thread.

 

[Der Alte]

What the early church taught (and the Orthodox church continue to teach) about Hades:
This event, known as the Harrowing of Hades, was taught from the very beginning of the Church. St. Melito of Sardis (died ca 180) in Homily on the Passion; Tertullian in A Treatise on the Soul, 55, Hippolytus in Treatise on Christ and Anti-Christ , Origen in Against Celsus, 2:43, and, later, St. Ambrose (died 397) all wrote of the Harrowing of Hell.~The Resurrection | Icon of Victory

Tertullian says nothing about harrowing hades in A Treatise on the Soul 55. Here is what he did say.

IX. A Treatise on the Soul. Chapter LV
But it was for this purpose, say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we might not ourselves have to descend thither. Well, then, what difference is there between heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits them all when dead? How, indeed, shall the soul mount up to heaven, where Christ is already sitting at the Father’s right hand, when as yet the archangel’s trumpet has not been heard by the command of God, (1Co_15:52 and 1Th_4:16) — when as yet those whom the coming of the Lord is to find on the earth, have not been caught up into the air to meet Him at His coming, (1Th_4:17) in company with the dead in Christ, who shall be the first to arise? (1Th_4:16) To no one is heaven opened; the earth is still safe for him, I would not say it is shut against him. When the world, indeed, shall pass away, then the kingdom of heaven shall be opened. … No, but in Paradise, you tell me, whither already the patriarchs and prophets have removed from Hades in the retinue of the Lord’s resurrection. How is it, then, that the region of Paradise, which as revealed to John in the Spirit lay under the altar, (Rev_6:9) displays no other souls as in it besides the souls of the martyrs? How is it that the most heroic martyr Perpetua on the day of her passion saw only her fellow-martyrs there, in the revelation which she received of Paradise, if it were not that the sword which guarded the entrance permitted none to go in thereat, except those who had died in Christ and not in Adam? ​

 

[AACJ]

The scripture in Hebrew does not support your traditional view. It takes insertions from Greek spiritualism to make unconditional human immortality.

LOL. Yeah, sure it does. What Hebrew Scripture are you referring to? What editions or manuscripts are you basing your claim on?

 

[AACJ]

I don't think there's going to be any way to declare a "victory" of one afterlife belief over another. All three have been accepted as there's really no definite way to rule any of them out. IOW....it's not something we can (accurately) get dogmatic over.

With all do respect, that is just another way of saying that, concerning such an important topic--the condition of man after material death--there is no way to arrive at the Truth. Also your statement is a truth claim that fails its own standard; that is, your truth claim cannot be established or verified. Also, your claim is a dogmatic claim. Is it not?

 

[mkgal1]

This event, known as the Harrowing of Hades, was taught from the very beginning of the Church. St. Melito of Sardis (died ca 180) in Homily on the Passion; Tertullian in A Treatise on the Soul, 55, Hippolytus in Treatise on Christ and Anti-Christ , Origen in Against Celsus, 2:43, and, later, St. Ambrose (died 397) all wrote of the Harrowing of Hell.~The Resurrection | Icon of Victory

Tertullian says nothing about harrowing hades in A Treatise on the Soul 55. Here is what he did say.
IX. A Treatise on the Soul. Chapter LV
But it was for this purpose, say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we might not ourselves have to descend thither. Well, then, what difference is there between heathens and Christians, if the same prison awaits them all when dead?

....or are you saying since Tertullian wrote "hell" and not "hades" that it's different? Did Tertullian's words get changed? Because, from what I understand "hell" didn't become a part of the English language until something like 725 AD.

ETA: This other quote uses "hades".....which is probably more accurate since "hell" wasn't a word used in Tertullian's era: The Biblical Basis for Purgatory

 

[AACJ]

The scripture in Hebrew does not support your traditional view. It takes insertions from Greek spiritualism to make unconditional human immortality.

What is your source for authority in matters of theology?

Let me surmise, you do not affirm the plenary inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, correct?

 

[mkgal1]

With all do respect, that is just another way of saying that, concerning such an important topic--the condition of man after material death--there is no way to arrive at the Truth. Also your statement is a truth claim that fails its own standard; that is, your truth claim cannot not be established or verified. Also, your claim is a dogmatic claim. Is it not?

It's been debated for centuries with no resolution. There's just not enough clarity in Scripture (personally....I don't believe the point of Scripture was afterlife....I believe it was this life). I think it diverts us from points being made (for instance.....in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus....if focused on afterlife theology, we can miss the point that there's a reversal there. The rich man is stripped of his riches and dignity....and Lazarus is given dignity through being named and his experience).

If it WERE such an *important* topic, I don't believe it'd be so ambiguous in Scripture (especially if our eternal lives depended on what we believe). It can be verified that there's no agreement among scholars (if that's my claim you're referring to).

I believe it's more important to notice that over and over again Scripture instructs us in how to care for "the least of these". We shouldn't get distracted away from that (in my opinion).

Yes....I'm dogmatically saying we can't get dogmatic over afterlife beliefs

 

[AACJ]

It's been debated for centuries with no resolution. There's just not enough clarity in Scripture (personally....I don't believe the point of Scripture was afterlife....I believe it was this life). I think it diverts us from points being made (for instance.....in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus....if focused on afterlife theology, we can miss the point that there's a reversal there. The rich man is stripped of his riches and dignity....and Lazarus is given dignity through being named and his experience).

If it WERE such an *important* topic, I don't believe it'd be so ambiguous in Scripture (especially if our eternal lives depended on what we believe). It can be verified that there's no agreement among scholars (if that's my claim you're referring to).

I believe it's more important to notice that over and over again Scripture instructs us in how to care for "the least of these". We shouldn't get distracted away from that (in my opinion).

Yes....I'm dogmatically saying we can't get dogmatic over afterlife beliefs

Yeah, there is also an on going debate between round and flat earthers.

So what?

The reality of debate does not determine what is truth in this matter

 

[Mark Corbett]

Every now in then in the midst of these debates, I feel it helps to take a breath and think about something we all agree on. Some of us believe in eternal torment, some in annihilationism, and some in universal reconciliation. This is not an unimportant issue. I myself have devoted quite a bit of time to this (mostly) friendly, family debate. But I want to offer you a type of Christmas present. So in the Deeper Fellowship section, I've posted some meditations about the Lord's Prayer. I think you'll all agree with at least 99% of it, reminding us that what we have in common is far more important than our differences. Here's the link:

The Lord's Prayer: Understanding it More Fully Helps Us Pray it More Powerfully

 

[mkgal1]

Yeah, there is also an on going debate between round and flat earthers.

So what?

The reality of debate does not determine what is truth in this matter​

Not everything has been revealed to us (the Body of Christ):​

"Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."~1 Corinthians 3:12​

 

[mkgal1]

I just came upon this verse in another discussion (it's what the whole theology of Christ preaching to those in Hades--place of the dead--is based on). Notice who is preached to:

For Christ also suffered once he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.~1 Peter 3:18-20​

 

[Anguspure]

LOL. Yeah, sure it does. What Hebrew Scripture are you referring to? What editions or manuscripts are you basing your claim on?

The word "nephesh" is repeatedly translated to imply unconditional human immortality.

Where the word shows that in fact the human soul can be destroyed and killed it is translated in a way that hides this.

Where the word is used in respect of animals this is also hidden.

There are other words along similar lines that are also given the same treatment in order to push Greek dualism.

 

[Anguspure]

What is your source for authority in matters of theology?

Let me surmise, you do not affirm the plenary inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, correct?

I consider that all scripture in its original form is God breathed. What men with their own agendas and the vagaries of translators do with it is another thing altogether.

 

[Anguspure]

What is your source for authority in matters of theology?

Let me surmise, you do not affirm the plenary inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, correct?

HENRY CONSTABLE, A. M.: “The Hebrew scholars knows that when Moses, in Genesis I. 20, 29, speaks of the nature of the lower order of animals, and when in Genesis ii, 7, he speaks of the nature of man, the inspired writer used the very same Hebrew terms of both one and the other. Each fish, and fowl, and creeping thing, and beast is called in the Hebrew a nephesh chajah as much as man who was given the rule over them. But this was in its apparent bearing wholly inconsistent with the philosophical ideas of the translators. They considered it dangerous that the similarity of description should appear in the English version, which Moses did not consider it dangerous to exhibit in the Hebrew original. Hence they must guard God’s Word from its supposed dangerous language by translating nephesh chajah very differently in the first chapter of Genesis, where it is applied to the lower creatures, from what they translated it in the second chapter, where it is applied to man…A gross, through unintentional fraud has been committed against the English reader. He is mislead in his searching of the Scriptures He is put on a false scent…Our English translators have supplied us with a commentary of their own instead of a translation, a comment we will here add, utterly alien to truth. But the result of this mistranslation is to lead astray the English reader who trusts in it. This is not the only instance, which occurs of the thing in reference to this question. The same Hebrew word is throughout the Old Testament translated according as the Platonic notions of the translator led him to think it ought to be translated. Plato had a considerable hand in the translation of King James’ Bible. The Hebrew word nephesh is translated ‘creature,’ ‘soul’ ‘life’ &c., just as squared with the notions of men who carried Plato’s philosophy into their noble work of the translation of Scripture. We affirm that a grave injury has been done to the English reader, and a gross wrong to God’s word.” “Hades or The Intermediate State of Man,” page 31–32, 1873, pubic domain.

 

[Ronald]

Der Alter,
I appreciate your response, I just don't care to debate this topic, I just offered my view, take it or leave it. I've done my share of research and have come to an understanding that only God Himself could change!
Have a Merry Christmas,
Ronald

 

[buddyt]

I surly haven't read everyone's post on this subject. But I would like to say when one who is Judged doesn't pass the test he will be consumed be Fire this is true. However for those who believe there will be souls Burning in hell for ever I'm sorry but you don't understand the word. Jesus tells us in Matthew 10:28 how it goes. What kind of Father would say I will make a man and if he doesn't love me Ill torment him forever. Are you going to be there looking over at uncle Jim screaming and popping like a peace of bacon. No not hardly. God doesn't want to put up with Thieves Liars Killers and so any more than you do. And I don't think He will put up with listening to the screaming and gashing of teeth for eternity. Myself I believe what Jesus said and when you destroy something it doesn't exist anymore. Just my two cents worth.

 

[Der Alte]

....or are you saying since Tertullian wrote "hell" and not "hades" that it's different? Did Tertullian's words get changed? Because, from what I understand "hell" didn't become a part of the English language until something like 725 AD.
ETA: This other quote uses "hades".....which is probably more accurate since "hell" wasn't a word used in Tertullian's era: The Biblical Basis for Purgatory

You are missing the point. Tertullian did not say anything remotely like "harrowing" either hades or hell. I quoted what he said about "hades" or "hell" in the referenced writing.

 

[Der Alte]

Der Alter,
I appreciate your response, I just don't care to debate this topic, I just offered my view, take it or leave it. I've done my share of research and have come to an understanding that only God Himself could change!
Have a Merry Christmas,
Ronald

Sin problema compadre. There are a multitude of folks around who are absolutely certain that they alone have the correct understanding of scripture and are just as certain that God is leading them as you appear to be. Here are a few, LDS, JW, WWCG, OP, UPCI, UU, INC. I will still be around to point out the errors of false teachings.

 

[Der Alte]

It's been debated for centuries with no resolution. There's just not enough clarity in Scripture (personally....I don't believe the point of Scripture was afterlife....I believe it was this life). I think it diverts us from points being made (for instance.....in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus....if focused on afterlife theology, we can miss the point that there's a reversal there. The rich man is stripped of his riches and dignity....and Lazarus is given dignity through being named and his experience).

Every early church father who mentions the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual. They were native Greek speakers.

• Irenaeus [A.D. 120-202.] Against Heresies Book II [pupil of Polycarp, who was a pupil of John the apostle]
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
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 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.
• Irenaeus Against Heresies. Book IV.
Chap II 3. ...And again, the Lord Himself exhibits Abraham as having said to the rich man, with reference to all those who were still alive: “If they do not obey Moses and the prophets, neither, if any one were to rise from the dead and go to them, will they believe him.” (Luk_16:31)
4. Now, He has not merely related to us a story respecting a poor man and a rich one; but He has taught us, in the first place, that no one should lead a luxurious life, nor, living in worldly pleasures and perpetual feastings, should be the slave of his lusts, and forget God. “For there was,” He says, “a rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and delighted himself with splendid feasts.” (Luk_6:19) Of such persons, too, the Spirit has spoken by Esaias: “They drink wine with [the accompaniment of] harps, and tablets, and psalteries, and flutes; but they regard not the works of God, neither do they consider the work of His hands.” (Isa_5:12)
• Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.] Treatise on the Soul
ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
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.
• Tertullian On Idolatry
ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Thus, too, Eleazar in Hades, (attaining refreshment in Abraham’s bosom) and the rich man, (on the other hand, set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution, their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good.
• Clement Of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor “
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 hay. “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.
• Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
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.
• Archelaus [A.D. 277.] The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes.
41. There was a certain rich man, (Luk_16:19, etc.) who lived after the manner of the Gentiles, and passed his time in great luxury every day; and there was also another man, a poor man, who was his neighbour, and who was unable to procure even his daily bread. It happened that both these men departed this life, that they both descended into the grave,333 and that the poor man was conveyed into the place of rest, and so forth, as is known to you. But, furthermore, that rich man had also five brothers, living as he too had lived, and disturbed by no doubt as to lessons which they had learned at home from such a master. The rich man then entreated that these should be instructed in the superior doctrine together and at once.334 But Abraham, knowing that they still stood in need of the paedagogue, said to him: “They have Moses and the prophets.” For if they received not these, so as to have their course directed by him, i.e., Moses, as by a paedagogue, they would not be capable of accepting the doctrine of the superior master.
• Methodius [A.D. 260-312.] From the Discourse on the Resurrection. Part III.
XIX. He says that Origen holds these opinions which he refutes. And there may be a doubt concerning Lazarus and the rich man. The simpler persons think that these things were spoken as though both were receiving their due for the things which they had done in life in their bodies; but the more accurate think that, since no one is left in life after the resurrection, these things do not happen at the resurrection. For the rich man says: “I have five brethren; . . . lest they also come into this place of torment,” (Luk_16:28) send Lazarus, that he may tell them of those things hich are here. And, therefore, if we ask respecting the “tongue,” and the “finger,” and “Abraham’s bosom,” and the reclining there, it may perhaps be that the soul receives in the change a form similar in appearance to its gross and earthly body.
But the rich man in torment, and the poor man who was comforted in the bosom of Abraham, are said, the one to be punished in Hades, and the other to be comforted in Abraham’s bosom, before the appearing of the Saviour, and before the end of the world, and therefore before the resurrection; teaching that now already, at the change, the soul rises a body.
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.​

If it WERE such an *important* topic, I don't believe it'd be so ambiguous in Scripture (especially if our eternal lives depended on what we believe). It can be verified that there's no agreement among scholars (if that's my claim you're referring to).

It was and is clear until people started fudging things like "'eternal' doesn't mean eternal." and "'punishment' doesn't mean punishment."

I believe it's more important to notice that over and over again Scripture instructs us in how to care for "the least of these". We shouldn't get distracted away from that (in my opinion).
Yes....I'm dogmatically saying we can't get dogmatic over afterlife beliefs

When a child is small i.e. the least of these do we not tell them "Don't touch the stove, it is hot and will burn you." Should we not do the same for the "least of these" even if they are not toddlers?