• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Is Hell Really Eternal? (2)

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟35,360.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Honest answer: Actually I beleive we (Christians & all humans) all "walk away" from God all the time. It is what some call sin. And we do it knowing or we should know that doing it can result in "burning forever" (whatever that means - and it is not to nothing because God did not make us to ever be "nothing").

So no, I do not believe our concept of Hell stops us from sinning. I think it does (for me and many) provide a good reason to repent.

If you are asking a hypothetical since I do not believe in annihilation, I think ceasing to be represents far less an incentive than the idea of what ever "burning forever" means. But either way, neither concept is going to stop people from sinning.

Just like outlawing guns does not stop people from using guns to kill, and the punishment does not stop them either. What stops people, (well rational people), and makes them think is the idea of getting caught. A rational person commits to a crime, but only after weighing the risk of getting caught verses the PRECIEVED reward - which is similar to our mental process before we commit a sin. With sin however, we are all going to caught - yet we still do it anyway. So no, regardless of how I viewed the punishment for getting caught - it would not stop me from sinning.

Thank you for your earnest reply. :)

Now, a follow up question: Let's say you have two neighbors. One is a blatant thief. He steals anything that isn't nailed down, and no matter how many times he gets arrested, he doesn't care at all about getting caught. He laughs it off, does his time, then is right back at it again as soon as they let him out.

The other neighbor would be a thief if he wasn't so terrified of jail. He got caught once, and he swore he was never going back to prison. He always seems to be casing your house, checking out your stuff, asking questions about when you'll be home, offering to hold your spare key. He does everything a thief would do except actually steal. Legally, he's a reformed man.

Which neighbor is righteous?
 
Upvote 0

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟35,360.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Wrong again, as usual. Mine was not an argument from silence because Jesus did in fact teach 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. This was done in the presence of many Jews, many of whom believed in a place of eternal punishment for sinners, they called it both Gehinnom/Gehenna and Sheol. Jesus' teaching about hell would have validated and reinforced the existing belief in hell, among the Jews. Considering that there was an existing belief in hell it is notable that Jesus quite evidently supported that belief, he certainly did not correct it. There may be a great number of things that Jesus did not specifically mention. Unlike what Jesus specifically talked about, His failure to mention these many things cannot be used to prove or disprove anything about them. See the difference?
If the Jews were wrong Jesus would have corrected them. He did not, thus their teaching on hell was correct.
(Post #1000, last thread)

Bumping this post to the front to counter arguments that Greek and Hebrew words were mistranslated as hell and that hell does not exist. Jesus was born and grew to adulthood among Jewish teachers and leaders who believed in a literal hell. Jesus said and did nothing to refute or disprove that belief.
(Post #882, last thread)

Jesus grew up in that culture He would have known their beliefs. If the Jewish belief had been wrong Jesus would have corrected them, but He did not.
(Post #879, last thread)

The 1st century Jews, in Israel, at the time of Jesus, who heard Him speak believed in a place of unending punishment, they called it both Gehinnom and Sheol. When Jesus spoke about "eternal punishment,""hell where the fire is not quenched, and thier worm does not die,"" "furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" that would have validated and furthered thier belief in hell. Jesus grew up in that culture he would have known their beliefs. If they were wrong Jesus said and did nothing to correct their false understanding.
(Post #869, last thread)

You used this argument that "Jesus didn't correct the 1st century Jews on their concept of hell" at least four times (I gave up searching after that), so clearly you think it is significant.

Now you need to explain why you don't believe in the 1st century Jewish version of Gehenna that you supplied as a source.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Thank you for your earnest reply. :)

Now, a follow up question: Let's say you have two neighbors. One is a blatant thief. He steals anything that isn't nailed down, and no matter how many times he gets arrested, he doesn't care at all about getting caught. He laughs it off, does his time, then is right back at it again as soon as they let him out.

The other neighbor would be a thief if he wasn't so terrified of jail. He got caught once, and he swore he was never going back to prison. He always seems to be casing your house, checking out your stuff, asking questions about when you'll be home, offering to hold your spare key. He does everything a thief would do except actually steal. Legally, he's a reformed man.

Which neighbor is righteous?
As long as we are playing hypothetical and saying it is ok to judge, I would say neither if by righteous one means not sinning. Both men are sinning.

The question is not whether people sin and would whatever view they hold of Hell scare them into stopping. Like both thieves, none of us stop - we all sin. The question is do we have to do anything about it AFTER we sin. Can we be righteous? of course! But that requires repentence when we stumble.

And for me, I would say the consequences of NOT doing something about it should be feared. And an eternity of suffering is certainly more fearful than poof "gone forever".

And we will all stumble. Every Apostle abandoned God that Thursday night and none showed their face the next day, save one that was probably too young to get undo notice or be held accountable for being there anyway.
 
Upvote 0

jamie2014

Member
Jun 11, 2014
246
8
✟22,942.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So my reply simply asked one to consider, given one's belief that people going to Hell are "gone forever", then how could it also be true that not existing ("never born") would be better than not existing ("gone forever")?

Ok, let's look at the verse you are referring to about being never born.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
1. ad hominem: attack on the character of a person rather than his opinions or arguments. Attacking another's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine his or her arguments.

The above obviously carries no weight.

Your objection carries no weight. It is not ad hom to say that a Universalist writes about Universalism. What would impress me would be someone who is not a Universalist quoting some of the same sources and coming to the same conclusion as Barclay.


2. Renowed? What difference does it make if a "lexicon" is renowed? And renowed according to whom? You? Is there some truth-tested standard available by which we can be persuaded to accept as weighty one lexicon over another, or is one more renowned than another because a consensus of it's readers favor its particular biases? And how do you know the author of what you presented isn't biased toward the idea of an eternal hell and puts forth his own ideology?

Did you present any lexical evidence for us to consider and compare to BAGD? Do you know of any such lexicon? Have you ever used a lexicon or do you just search the internet for writings that support your assumptions/presuppositions? You are showing that you don't know what you are talking about. The abbreviation, BAGD, is from the names of the four Greek scholars who compiled the lexicon, Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker. You want to know how renowned it is? Google it. For example.

The Bauer-Danker Lexicon (ISBN 0226039331) is among the most highly respected dictionaries of Biblical Greek.[1] The producers of the German forerunner are Preuschen and Bauer. The English edition is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (the Third Edition was published in 2001 by The University of Chicago Press).
History

The origin may be traced to Preuschen's Vollständiges Griechisch-Deutsches Handwörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (1910).[2] Bauer extensively revised this work, as Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur.

In the fall of 1949, F. Wilbur Gingrich was granted a leave of absence from Albright College to work on a new Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, translating and adapting the work of Walter Bauer’s Greek-German lexicon (Bauer lexicon) in collaboration with Dr. William F. Arndt. The work actually took 5 ½ years.

The fourth German edition (1949-52) was translated to English by Willian F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich in 1957. Arndt died that same year, to be replaced by Frederick William Danker, with whom Gingrich prepared the second English edition published in 1979.​

You appear to think that a flurry of cut-n-paste containing gobs of abbreviations and Greek spellings passes for legitimacy, but I differ.

I quoted the full definition from BAGD. Any scholar who knows anything about language studies would know what the abbreviations are. Also there is an index, which identifies the abbreviations, in the front of the book which I linked to. Unlike you I quoted directly from and linked to the primary source, BAGD, I did not copy/paste a quote from some anonymous website.

Barclay's quote was very forthright and seemed well thought out, unencumbered by attempts to look "scholarly" and he cites several others who appear to be in general agreement.

And you know that Barclay was "forthright and seemed well thought out, unencumbered by attempts to look "scholarly"" exactly how? What is your standard, whoever appears to support your assumptions/presuppositions?

You posted nothing that refutes his distinction between the two words for punishment, timoria and kolasis.

Not necessary. The full definition from BAGD was sufficient. It did not support Barclay's assertion "The difference is quite clear in Greek and it is always observed.Timoria is retributive punishment. Kolasis is always given to amend and to cure.[/i]"

I admit, I know next to nothing of Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew. You've stated at least 1/2 dozen times in the short time I've been posting in this thread what an expert on Biblical languages you are....is this the best you can do? Can you cite anyone who takes Barclay's argument on directly?

You are making false accusations. I have never stated "what an expert on Biblical languages" I am. If you think so, please quote and link the post.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
(Post #1000, last thread)

(Post #882, last thread)

(Post #879, last thread)

(Post #869, last thread)

You used this argument that "Jesus didn't correct the 1st century Jews on their concept of hell" at least four times (I gave up searching after that), so clearly you think it is significant.

Until now nobody has ever addressed that point, in any way.

Now you need to explain why you don't believe in the 1st century Jewish version of Gehenna that you supplied as a source.

I haven't quite mastered the ability to read minds. I think I know but what exactly are you talking about here? I don't want to waste time commenting on something you are not talking about so be specific. What exactly do you mean, I "don't believe in the 1st century Jewish version of Gehenna that (I) supplied as a source?"
 
Upvote 0

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟35,360.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As long as we are playing hypothetical and saying it is ok to judge, I would say neither if by righteous one means not sinning. Both men are sinning.

The question is not whether people sin and would whatever view they hold of Hell scare them into stopping. Like both thieves, none of us stop - we all sin. The question is do we have to do anything about it AFTER we sin. Can we be righteous? of course! But that requires repentence when we stumble.

And for me, I would say the consequences of NOT doing something about it should be feared. And an eternity of suffering is certainly more fearful than poof "gone forever".

And we will all stumble. Every Apostle abandoned God that Thursday night and none showed their face the next day, save one that was probably too young to get undo notice or be held accountable for being there anyway.

But it makes no difference if one punishment is "harsher" than the other if neither is actually effective, does it?

Now lets say you have a third neighbor. He's a thief, too. He stole everything under the sun, got busted a few times, but that never stopped him.

But the last time he busted into somebody's house, something strange happened. He tripped the alarm on the way in, and just as he was walking out the door with a "new" tv, the cops rolled up. Caught him red handed. The old man who lived at the house had woken up in the commotion and shuffled down to the front door. He looked around and quickly surmised the situation. The cops asked him if he knew this guy with the tv, and the old man replied, "Yeah, I met him earlier. He said he needed a tv, so I told him he could have mine. He was just picking it up. I musta forgot about the alarm. Sorry for the commotion."

The cops made a few condescending comments and then left. Our thief was left standing there with the tv, dumbstruck. The old man says, "Well, are you coming in? Or going home? You better make up your mind or I'm going back to bed." The thief set the tv down right there on the lawn and ran for it.

He got home and went about his normal routine, but couldn't get the crazy old man out of his head. Who acts like that? What kind of person gives away what's already being stolen to the person who's stealing it? What kind of game is that? It's too weird.

After a while our thief went back to the old man's house to find out. He knocked on the door and the old man said, "'Bout time. Come on in." The thief sat down and listened to the old man's tale. He heard about grace, he heard about forgiveness, he heard about strength, and he believed every last word the crazy old man told him, because he'd seen it all in action. He decided right then and there that he wanted to be like this guy.

So this thief didn't quit stealing because he got caught, or because he was afraid to get caught, or because he was afraid to get shot during a robbery. He stopped because he caught wind of a life that's freer than keeping the law, and even freer than breaking the law. He found true strength and power. He found a life that no one can take away, because he's ready to give it away to anyone who asks.

This is a righteous man of God. This is a man who has chosen the path of Christ. This is a man who can be trusted with your house key.

There is no way that fear can produce such a man. There is no way that avoiding pain, whether it's permanent or temporary or imaginary can ever bring a man to this. There is no way that someone who is trying to save his own butt, whether in the here-and-now or the here-after, can possibly be following Christ, who put his own butt on the line for sinners and thieves.

And it is the beauty and the power and the unbelievable awe of this gospel of Jesus Christ that gets lost in the shuffle when we start trying to formulate who deserves what and for how long, and how scared they need to be to avoid it.

There is far, far more to life than avoiding death.

God bless, brother.
 
Upvote 0

Timothew

Conditionalist
Aug 24, 2009
9,659
844
✟36,554.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I see, so this belief in non-existence of humans being a terrible thing to face, so terrible it would be better to have never existed - oh wait - that is the same state - oh never mind ----anyway apparently a belief in annihilation goes along with believing that God has limits that should include anything we can imagine that we do not like. Good to know.

The point remains unanswered that Jesus also said about the fate of a particular damned, that it would be better if that person NEVER existed - than to face what that person would be facing in the next life. To then suggest that Jesus also said regarding that same fate that what that same person is facing (for which He said it would be better to never exist) is equal to what He just said would better - that makes Jesus sound like a moron.

I get how desperately some want Hell to be a quick, easy painless thing because God would be such a monster to allow anything worse, but to render Him and His Word chibberish just seems to far to me.
Fear the one who can DESTROY both body and soul in hell.

I get how desperately some want Hell to not be a place where the body and soul of the lost are destroyed...

The fact is that Jesus never said that Judas would be tortured alive forever in Hell, you added that part yourself. I sorry that you think Jesus sounds like a moron. I don't think He does.

Your post is a little harsh. Why don't you lighten up a bit.
 
Upvote 0

seeingeyes

Newbie
Nov 29, 2011
8,944
809
Backwoods, Ohio
✟35,360.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Until now nobody has ever addressed that point, in any way.



I haven't quite mastered the ability to read minds. I think I know but what exactly are you talking about here? I don't want to waste time commenting on something you are not talking about so be specific. What exactly do you mean, I "don't believe in the 1st century Jewish version of Gehenna that (I) supplied as a source?"

No need to read my mind. I quoted the portion of the Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna (your source) that I was referring to in my post #6.

The parts about hell that you don't believe in.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
53,381
11,921
Georgia
✟1,096,207.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married

1. In Hell "both body and soul" are destroyed in fiery hell.. Matt 10:28.

2. In hell - the full debt of sin is fully paid by the lost -- Matt 18. End of chapter.

3. In the lake of Fire event of Rev 20 'fire comes down out of heaven from God and CONSUMES the wicked.

4. And yet - the wicked are not instantly consumed but rather they suffer 'the torment of fire and brimstone" having no rest day or night until that fire has fully consumed them "both body and soul" -- "destroyed" as were Sodom and Gomorrah "Destroyed by reducing them to ashes".

Watch the movie "Hell and Mr. Fudge" when you get a chance.

in Christ,

Bob
 
Upvote 0
Dec 8, 2012
469
40
✟23,285.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Not necessary. The full definition from BAGD was sufficient. It did not support Barclay's assertion "The difference is quite clear in Greek and it is always observed.Timoria is retributive punishment. Kolasis is always given to amend and to cure."
Here is typical Der Alter...no actual refutation necessary because I posted something another guy said who believes differently. Your true colors shine forth again.
 
Upvote 0

THIS

I only want God's Truth
Apr 22, 2014
995
12
Hidden with Christ in God, see Colossians 3:3.
✟1,226.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Physical bodies are not immortal which is why there was a tree of life in the garden.

Fire sears the lungs and a person can't breath.

I can prove you wrong easily, but will you believe what the written Word says?

1 Corinthians 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;
 
Upvote 0

THIS

I only want God's Truth
Apr 22, 2014
995
12
Hidden with Christ in God, see Colossians 3:3.
✟1,226.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I looked up those references from Malachi, Zechariah, and Hebrews in the Greek. The word "formed" means "shaped". A potter "shapes" the clay, he doesn't change its chemical composition.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Your looking up Greek words means nothing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Neither does God's act of "shaping" His spirit in us change it into anything that is distinct to any person, not the thoughts, memory, or appearance, which then "RETURNS" to God at death, for only that which CAME FORTH from God at our birth can RETURN BACK to God at our death. The other references simply refer to the our spirit that God breathed into us to give us life. No reference to a "spirit man" that flies off somewhere at death that does anything like remember things or feels anything. To the contrary, Solomon says the "dead know not anything" and don't have a "memory", nor do they "work, devise, have knowledge, or wisdom".
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Soul sleep believers try to use scripture from Ecclesiastes to support their false beliefs that our spirits do not live on after the death of our bodies, but the part of Ecclesiastes they use is about a message of if there were no God. Ecclesiastes also says the dead have no more reward (Ecclesiastes 9:5). Do you believe that the dead have no more reward? The Old Testament believers believed in a resurrection (Job 19:25-27; Isaiah 26:19; Daniel 12:2; and others), so why would Solomon say the dead have no more reward if not to imagine a life without God.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Soul sleepers also use a few scriptures in Psalms to try to say the spirits of humans die with the body. There is no scripture in Psalms that says that. One must remember too that the Old Testament people did not yet have the entire gospel. Ecclesiastes is about earthly man. Read what Solomon says in Ecclesiastes in 3:18-21 I also thought, “As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Did you read how Solomon says, "Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?” Solomon says, “Who knows…” Surely, the New Testament teaches us about what is spiritual![/FONT]
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But it makes no difference if one punishment is "harsher" than the other if neither is actually effective, does it?
.....snip
There is far, far more to life than avoiding death.

God bless, brother.
I agree but living a good life, running the good race was not the point, nor do we use Hell as a motivation for doing so.

As I keep saying, PART of the motivation for cleaning ourselves up (repetence - seeking forgiveness) when we fall while running this race is a proper fear of the consequences for NOT doing that. We are already in the race, and yes running a good one is FREEDOM. And no we do not run because we are scared of Hell. This much I think we agree on.

I do think for non-Christians PART of the motivation for starting to run a good race would also be concern for the fate of one's soul. And neither do we ask them to run it out of fear for their soul, but out of love for them.

But back to my point, an eternity in Hell is indeed scarier than poof "forever gone" and so logical to fear one more than the other.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Ok, let's look at the verse you are referring to about being never born.
To what end? So someone can say Jesus never said Judas was going to Hell. That's weak. He said better that Judas never existed. Am unclear how that statement would be taken outside a context of even the POTENTIAL for the consequences of his actions, whether anyone says Judas is in Hell now or not.

We are speaking about the POTENTIAL for the consequences of sin. The position one has clearly taken is that that potential is poof "forever gone". "Forever gone" means ceasing to exist. So if someone says that for a particular sin a person has commited IT would be better for THAT PERSON if they never existed, the IT part can only be understood as the consequence for that sin. Again, one has said that consequence is poof "forever gone".

So now that we have discussed the verse, and reserved our judgement of poor Judas, lets answer the point.
How is "never existing" better than poof "forever gone"?
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
65
Left coast
✟100,100.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The fact is that Jesus never said that Judas would be tortured alive forever in Hell, you added that part yourself. I sorry that you think Jesus sounds like a moron. I don't think He does.

Your post is a little harsh. Why don't you lighten up a bit.
Actually I do not know if Judas is in Hell or not and that is not what I said.

I do know that our Lord said it would be better for Judas if he never existed. Better than what?
The what part can only be reference to the POTENTIAL for Judas actions, whether that potential is actually realized or not. So we can set aside claims that ANYONE knows Judas fate or not, or whether that verse means Judas is in Hell now. That is not the point.

Ok, I will lighten up. Because of certain posters present, we have to add the hilarious concept here of "never existing again" and "never not existing again". In a nutshell, the idea all of us will cease to exist at death, but that is ok because everyone will "come back" from that state and then some will never not exist again(Heaven) while others will never exist a second time(Hell) and never come back again. I do think that is pretty funny.

So the point is having someone say "never existing"(never born) would be better than to "never exist again"" sounds pretty moronic to me. When we add the full view of "never being born"(not existing) would be better than not existing (death), then existing again (come back for Judgement) only to then not exist again and never exist again forever after that - it sounds even more moronic.

And it is not my view making this quote of God sound moronic. How is that for jocularity?
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Here is typical Der Alter...no actual refutation necessary because I posted something another guy said who believes differently. Your true colors shine forth again.

Wrong again. Someone quoted a book written, by one man, in 1967. I quoted from the highly respected Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker lexicon which was first published in 1957, and updated and revised at least three times since then. Most recently in 2001. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker were four scholars who compiled, revised and updated the lexicon. This lexicon has 8 pages of sources cited, with approximately 50 sources per page, compared to only three in Barclay.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
29,117
6,148
EST
✟1,123,613.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No need to read my mind. I quoted the portion of the Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna (your source) that I was referring to in my post #6.

The parts about hell that you don't believe in.

And you think this proves what? Then as now some people believed in annihilation and some believed in hell. But as I said the Jews, in Israel before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of 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, thus their teaching on hell was correct.
 
Upvote 0

jamie2014

Member
Jun 11, 2014
246
8
✟22,942.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I can prove you wrong easily, but will you believe what the written Word says?

1 Corinthians 15:42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. (Revelation 20:5)
You are confusing the second resurrection with the first resurrection.
 
Upvote 0