Let's Talk About Hell (2)

[gort]

So basically your explanation of the lack of eternal suffering in the Torah amounts to "God's ways are higher than ours?" Bull. If the promise of a Savior was hinted at in Genesis 3:15, then the promise of a place of eternal suffering would be as well in some shape form or fashion. Its not. This is the fate of humans after the fall, it should be hinted at least.

The promise of a Savior was enough to give people hope that their constantly dying self would have something to look forward to, something more than just this life.

Let me ask you this. When were these doctrines made? Let's say you picked up Genesis for the first time today having heard nothing about Christianity or anything. What would your response be if I asked you what happened to people? Lets say you go on to read the rest of the old testament. What would your response be then?

This is what I've been saying since the beginning of our argument. The Old Testament really doesn't address a place like the hell of eternal suffering. Its only with a Christian mindset that we warp it to mean that. The New Testament is very sparse in its descriptions of hell as well, and the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is the only 'definitive' description of inside hell that we get.

So where's the evidence for anhilation in the garden of Eden??

 

[Soulgazer]

I have had no forms of uncritical indoctrination whatsoever about this particular book as I find it harmonious with all the scriptures already represented in the book called the bible. It is harmonious with the beginning as it presents prophecy about the end, the culmination of events started by God and finished by God. It provides an insight into eternity that is mutually inclusive with what Jesus taught being both bitter and sweet as the little book that John swallowed.

To examine such in the light of Mohammed or Gita would be a most uncritical examination if there ever was one and I ponder why you would make such a gesture? I will make no assumptions at this time until I hear it from the horses mouth or have enough evidence to make a critical judgement just as I hope you will not make assumptions in error about me.

Because only by indoctrination would anyone find it harmonious with the Gospels or actual historical events. It shows Christ as a conquering avenger instead of one who refused to judge; It is a failed prophesy that is completely in Harmony with Jonah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other failed prophesies, illustrating that men's expectations fall far short of the Love of God. Where man envisions and desires the destruction of others so much that he put's acts of destruction onto the Father, God brings about acts of Mercy.
"There shall be no sign given" still applies.

 

[Timothew]

I am saying that humans and angels are both eternal because the software that runs them are eternal.

I like this, it seems kind of like something out of a Phillip K. Dick story.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

 

[Timothew]

So where's the evidence for anhilation in the garden of Eden??

Good question!! Here's Genesis 2:15-17

Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Die means to stop being alive.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Good question!! Here's Genesis 2:15-17

Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Die means to stop being alive.

Then along comes the nachash to Eve.....

Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

Gene 2:15 And YVWH 'Elohiym is taking the 'adam and He is leaving him in garden of 'Eden to serve and keep it.
16 And YHVH 'Elohiym is laying command on the 'adam to say: "from of every tree of the garden to eat, thou shall eat.
17 And from tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not you shall eat from it, that in day of you to eat from it, to die thou shall die".

Gene 3:3 but from fruit of the tree which in midst of the garden 'Elohiym says 'not ye shall eat from it, and not ye shall touch in it, lest ye shall die'".
4 And the nachash is saying to the woman: "not to die ye shall die.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Hell to me seems like a fabrication. It could be a place of fiery torment, but eternal fire could just as easily be a metaphor for never ending regret and melancholy.
The eternal torture and flame idea has always seemed pagan to me. For what reason does one need to be burned alive forever? Nobody, not even Hitler or Hussein is worthy of that. It's outrageous.

 

[Timothew]

Hell to me seems like a fabrication. It could be a place of fiery torment, but eternal fire could just as easily be a metaphor for never ending regret and melancholy.
The eternal torture and flame idea has always seemed pagan to me. For what reason does one need to be burned alive forever? Nobody, not even Hitler or Hussein is worthy of that. It's outrageous.

Good call, the reason it seems pagan is that the idea grew out of pagan greek philosophy. The ancient greeks believed that everyone's spirit went to Hades when they died. The Good went to a part of Hades known as the Elysian Fields where they experienced bliss forever and the Evil went to a part of Hades known as Tartarus where they were tormented forever. The Romans copied everything from the Greeks, being warriors more than philosophers, so they took over these beliefs as well. Then the Romans were converted to "Christianity" and kept the pagan ideas of Tartarus and the Elysian Fields as well. So instead of Eternal Life after the Resurrection as described in the bible (or an eternal death, for those who do not receive eternal life), we have this eclectic mixture of Greek-Roman Religion and Christianity including the Torture-Hell.

But if a person reads the words of the Bible, they can still discover True Christianity there. It's just necessary to let go of preconceived notions.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

So where's the evidence for anhilation in the garden of Eden??

You shall surely die.

 

[createdtoworship]

So basically your explanation of the lack of eternal suffering in the Torah amounts to "God's ways are higher than ours?" Bull. If the promise of a Savior was hinted at in Genesis 3:15, then the promise of a place of eternal suffering would be as well in some shape form or fashion. Its not. This is the fate of humans after the fall, it should be hinted at least.

The promise of a Savior was enough to give people hope that their constantly dying self would have something to look forward to, something more than just this life.

Let me ask you this. When were these doctrines made? Let's say you picked up Genesis for the first time today having heard nothing about Christianity or anything. What would your response be if I asked you what happened to people? Lets say you go on to read the rest of the old testament. What would your response be then?

This is what I've been saying since the beginning of our argument. The Old Testament really doesn't address a place like the hell of eternal suffering. Its only with a Christian mindset that we warp it to mean that. The New Testament is very sparse in its descriptions of hell as well, and the story of Lazarus and the Rich man is the only 'definitive' description of inside hell that we get.

You would think that election would be disclosed in genesis but it's not. Nor is sanctification or predestination. Genesis is not a doctrinal book but a book of origins. This is why eternal hell is not spoken of. Again this could also be because eternal Hell was for angels at the time genesis was written. Humans went to paradise or abrahams bosom, which is empty now. So this is a second reason for why genesis does not speak of eternal hell because paradise was not eternal. Thirdly, Every book of the bible does not contain every doctrine. Some books don't even speak of Hell at all even in a temporary sense.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

Would it shock you if I told you that I don't believe God elects certain people to be saved, that people are not predestined to be saved or not.

Also, could people who rejected God go to Abraham's bosom before Abraham was even born let alone before God made the promise to Abraham? Think it through, the idea crumbles pretty quickly. You said earlier that you literally thought Abraham was the guardian of paradise. How does this work then, was paradise created after Abraham? But Genesis says that God created the heavens and the earth. It should have been around since the beginning.

This is the beginning of the fall of man. God should have told them about eternal suffering right then and there instead of just saying "Meh it can wait." It makes no sense if you think it through. Its a bull**** excuse prompted by doctrine of the church of today. This isn't doctrine or principles we're talking about here, this is the fate of tangible human beings. I believe God can be harsh and strict, but I don't think He's sadistic. He's merciful enough not torture a person for all eternity by burning them because they rejected Him.

 

[Hillsage]

[FONT=&quot]

No, I meant that resurrection is the end of death for those who receive eternal life from God. For those who do not receive eternal life, what else is there? What is the state of those who do not receive life? the condition of not having life is called death.

For those who do not receive life after being resurrected from the dead there is a time of judgment in the following verse but nothing is said of being resurrected from the dead to enter the state of death as you quoted above. Can you give me something to look at scripturally?

JOH 5:28 'Wonder not at this, because there doth come an hour in which all those in the tombs shall hear his voice, 29 and they shall come forth; those who did the good things to a rising again of life, and those who practised the evil things to a rising again of judgment.

Is there scripture backing this belief?

Well of course there is.
[/FONT]

 

[Hillsage]

Die means to stop being alive.

Not in this case. This is known as a Hebraism and according to sources I've read it simply means you have received a 'death sentence' and you 'shall surely die'. Young's translates that 'sentence' like this;

[YLT] GEN 2:17 and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it - dying thou dost die.'

The same Hebraism or 'death sentance' is noted below in a couple of other scriptures.

NUM 26:65 For the LORD had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun.

2SA 12:14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

IOW Adam and Eve didn't die in the Garden during that 24 hour period. Their spirit didn't die because that's what gives life to the body. Their soul didn't die or they'd have been mental vegetables, and their bodies didn't die...obviously...but they began to age...eg. dying the would surely die.

 

[gort]

Good question!! Here's Genesis 2:15-17

Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

Die means to stop being alive.

Sorry, they did'nt die that day. No case for anhilation

 

[gort]

You shall surely die.

Read my last post. They did'nt die that day. Besides, it says nothing whatsoever about anhilation.

 

[gort]

Because only by indoctrination would anyone find it harmonious with the Gospels or actual historical events. It shows Christ as a conquering avenger instead of one who refused to judge; It is a failed prophesy that is completely in Harmony with Jonah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and other failed prophesies, illustrating that men's expectations fall far short of the Love of God. Where man envisions and desires the destruction of others so much that he put's acts of destruction onto the Father, God brings about acts of Mercy.
"There shall be no sign given" still applies.

...except the sign of Jonah.

Interesting, failed prophecies of Isaiah and such. Even Jesus read from the book of Isaiah.

Luk 4:21 And He began to say to them, Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears.

You have no credibility whatsoever. Go in peace.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

Read my last post. They did'nt die that day. Besides, it says nothing whatsoever about anhilation.

They did die though. He didn't say they would surely die on the spot, it simply says that they would surely die. You're putting words in His mouth.

Can you back up the claim that God was saying they would die as soon as they ate of the tree of knowledge given the fact that Jews often talked in a prophetic sense? It wouldn't be out of place for them to use this prophetic sense in this story.

As I said before, God has said someone would be dead for their actions and it didn't happen right away.

As I used as an example before, Genesis 20

1Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, 2and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
3But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, “You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.”
4Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.”
6Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die.”

Abimelech had taken Sarah, wife of Abraham, to be a part of his harem. God told Abimelech he was going to die for this transgression. Abimelech gave Sarah back to Abraham. Abimelech didn't die, God spared him.

So lets back up to the creation story. God said they would surely die if they ate of the tree of knowledge. They ate of the tree and ended up dying later on, according to the Bible some 900+ years later, for Adam anyways. What God said came true. From your stand point, how do you reconcile this?

In other words, would Adam and Eve have died of old age if they hadn't have ate of the tree of knowledge? If they were going to die anyways, why would God's warning be of any significance? They would die natural causes, might as well figure out what happens by eating of the tree. The state of ceasing to live had not happened before in the world at this time. Speaking of which, why do we age and die? Don't tell me how, I can look up the scientific explanation on google. WHY do we die? What purpose is there in that?

Regardless, the creation story sure as hell doesn't say anything about hell as we've come to know it.

 

[createdtoworship]

They did die though. He didn't say they would surely die on the spot, it simply says that they would surely die. You're putting words in His mouth.

Can you back up the claim that God was saying they would die as soon as they ate of the tree of knowledge given the fact that Jews often talked in a prophetic sense? It wouldn't be out of place for them to use this prophetic sense in this story.

As I said before, God has said someone would be dead for their actions and it didn't happen right away.

As I used as an example before, Genesis 20

1Now Abraham moved on from there into the region of the Negev and lived between Kadesh and Shur. For a while he stayed in Gerar, 2and there Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” Then Abimelech king of Gerar sent for Sarah and took her.
3But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, “You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman.”
4Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, “Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? 5Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and didn’t she also say, ‘He is my brother’? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands.”
6Then God said to him in the dream, “Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. 7Now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die.”

Abimelech had taken Sarah, wife of Abraham, to be a part of his harem. God told Abimelech he was going to die for this transgression. Abimelech gave Sarah back to Abraham. Abimelech didn't die, God spared him.

So lets back up to the creation story. God said they would surely die if they ate of the tree of knowledge. They ate of the tree and ended up dying later on, according to the Bible some 900+ years later, for Adam anyways. What God said came true. From your stand point, how do you reconcile this?

In other words, would Adam and Eve have died of old age if they hadn't have ate of the tree of knowledge? If they were going to die anyways, why would God's warning be of any significance? They would die natural causes, might as well figure out what happens by eating of the tree. The state of ceasing to live had not happened before in the world at this time. Speaking of which, why do we age and die? Don't tell me how, I can look up the scientific explanation on google. WHY do we die? What purpose is there in that?

Regardless, the creation story sure as hell doesn't say anything about hell as we've come to know it.

He died spiritually not physically, and that is why we need to be born again after that.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

He died spiritually not physically, and that is why we need to be born again after that.

Prove it

 

[Timothew]

Read my last post. They did'nt die that day. Besides, it says nothing whatsoever about anhilation.

As another has said, they did die just as God said they would. It says nothing whatsoever about eternal torturement. The day they sinned is the day they became mortal. The wages of sin is death, this was proven by the fact that Adam and Eve actually did die. They died physically and that is why they need the resurrection to be given by Jesus Christ on the last day. We all do, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[Hillsage]

Prove it

Amen, can't be done except by hanging your brain on the laurels of tradition, concerning their interpretation of that verse. Their thinking was; They didn't die physically so they 'must have died' in some other capacity. Well why don't they 'at least' have some kind of scripture for that belief...I'll tell you why...there isn't one unless you misinterpret Gen 2. At least they could have said their soul died...after all that is more scriptural than an eternal spirit dying.

EZE 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sins shall die.

But this is just another example of why orthodoxy misses it (as we all do). They try to 'figure out' what must be 'spiritually revealed'. Most of their gurus have too many 'mental degrees' to even yield to 'spiritual revelation' IMO.

Timothew

The day they sinned is the day they became mortal.

That's a good word for the death sentence I'm speaking of. And the reason they died was because they no longer had access to the tree of life in the Garden...not because they just ate quick acting poison.