Let's Talk About Hell (3)

[createdtoworship]

Great, then show a few examples.

Following are a few verses that show the eternality of the hell and punishment. God uses different phrases to describe the same thing.

* "And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9).
* "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
* These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever," (Jude12-13).

Is "forever and ever" without end?

The phrase "forever and ever" is used both of describing God's eternal worth and the duration of eternal damnation. The exact same Greek phrase is used in each of the verses in the table below.

 

[Hillsage]

Originally Posted by Hillsage

No, it proves that the fire won't be put out "quenched" before it finishes burning that which fuels it.
​

thats an assumption

No, that's not an "assumption", it's a dictionary definition of the word quenched...to put out or extinguish a fire.

Dictionary reference; quench
1. to slake, satisfy, or allay (thirst, desires, passion, etc.).
2. to put out or extinguish (fire, flames, etc.).
3. to cool suddenly by plunging into a liquid, as in tempering steel by immersion in water.

The fire of God is not extinguishable and cannot be put out, but will therefore serve the purpose for which it burns, and for which it has burned in the past. And that is why scripture says;

Mark 9:49 For every one will be salted with fire.

...as spiritual fire doesn't need fuel. Angels are spirits that hell was created for. You have no evidence of this.

That's also part of the point I'm making. This fire doesn't need fuel because it is a metaphorical fire and relates in no way to some kind of house fire or camp fire. The hereafter purpose of the 'consuming fire that our God is'.... will be for the same purpose that it had for us here and now. God's fire is purgative, cleansing, purifying (which is actually the root Greek word for fire...'pur'.

Jesus' comparisons to the garbage dump fires of Gehenna is for allegorical purposes, and not literal. I don't know of any scriptural examples of God torturing unbelievers. Actually the only torturing I know of scripturally is for "every son he receives".

HEB 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

 

[createdtoworship]

Jesus' comparisons to the garbage dump fires of Gehenna is for allegorical purposes, and not literal.

you have to prove this point, not just assume.

 

[Timothew]

Following are a few verses that show the eternality of the hell and punishment. God uses different phrases to describe the same thing.

* "And these will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9).
* "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).
* These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever," (Jude12-13).

Is "forever and ever" without end?

The phrase "forever and ever" is used both of describing God's eternal worth and the duration of eternal damnation. The exact same Greek phrase is used in each of the verses in the table below.

This says destruction, not torment or torture.
Sodom and Gomorrah are examples. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, not tormented.

This says they are dead. Not only dead but doubly dead. As the munchkin said "not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead."

 

[Timothew]

Originally Posted by gradyll

i've been quoting verses you just don't like them....
​

I didn't see the one that said "the fires of hell don't consume the captives but only torment them."

Would you mind reposting that verse?

There is no verse that says "the fires of hell don't consume the captives but only torment them." There is no verse that says the wages of sin is eternal torment. There is a verse that says the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

 

[Hillsage]

you have to prove this point, not just assume.

I already did that Grady. You are salted with fire, you if you believe you are baptized with the holy spirit and fire.

And what about your 172 post where you refuted the literalness of the fire when you said; "but there is no burning trash heap that was invented in the 13th century I think."

So maybe you now need to prove hells future fire is literal and not allegorical. Or you could waffle on what you just said above. You could also refute the above scriptural references which refer to metaphorical fires.

And don't forget to refute the dictionary definition of quench....which you have conveniently ignored IMO. I put a lot in my last post and you come back with a 'one sentence' challenge. I must consider it as a challenge answered, and all the other points I made as undefended in your answer.

I'd also like your comment on God torturing his sons whom he loves. Why would God do such a thing?

 

[Soulgazer]

I believe Paul's letters are authentic, and the 4 gospels. I accept the current canon as authentic, written by apostles, or close associates (Luke-Acts).

AH, there is your problem. You have to come up with a definition of authentic. "Authentic" in belonging to the person ascribed to it? Not all of Paul's letter's are authentic Paul. And the only signator Gospel that is semi "authentic" is Mark. Matthew is dependent on Mark, John is a Novel, and Luke is an adaptation of "Gospel of the Lord". Thomas "authentic"? It is authentic in that it is the very earliest piece of Christian writing, except for perhaps 1 Thessalonians. Like the other signator Epistles it is probably Pseudopigrapha.

However, "Authentic" in reflecting early christian beliefs? All of the New Testament is "authentic" in that regard, though some of the writings are much earlier than others, and reflect a second century rather than a first century belief. The Bible does not reflect one belief but four, if you are striving for absolute accuracy.

However, the books in the bible were not selected for "authenticity", though that was a secondary concern, but because they reflected a later fourth century theology. In that the biblical and non biblical writings all reflect widespread Christian theologies, they are all equally "authentic" in that regard.

By selecting and quoting verses from Christian sources, biblical or non biblical, all a person can do is demonstrate that a belief was held by the authors.

 

[createdtoworship]

This says destruction, not torment or torture.
Sodom and Gomorrah are examples. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, not tormented.

This says they are dead. Not only dead but doubly dead. As the munchkin said "not only merely dead, but really most sincerely dead."

if one verse mentions eternal torment then we have to make all the other verses match eternal torment. So when it mentions death it means eternal death or on going death. Not temporal. Don't you see this point timothew?

 

[createdtoworship]

I already did that Grady. You are salted with fire, you if you believe you are baptized with the holy spirit and fire.

And what about your 172 post where you refuted the literalness of the fire when you said; "but there is no burning trash heap that was invented in the 13th century I think."

So maybe you now need to prove hells future fire is literal and not allegorical. Or you could waffle on what you just said above. You could also refute the above scriptural references which refer to metaphorical fires.

And don't forget to refute the dictionary definition of quench....which you have conveniently ignored IMO. I put a lot in my last post and you come back with a 'one sentence' challenge. I must consider it as a challenge answered, and all the other points I made as undefended in your answer.

I'd also like your comment on God torturing his sons whom he loves. Why would God do such a thing?

the fires were not in existence as to the trash heap so God must have meant the real deal. This proves it. Otherwise you have contradiction after contradiction.

 

[Timothew]

if one verse mentions eternal torment then we have to make all the other verses match eternal torment. So when it mentions death it means eternal death or on going death. Not temporal. Don't you see this point timothew?

So if one verse in a parable say I am in torment, or one verse in a book of apocalypic symbols says tormented day and night, then we have to change the meaning of 50,000 other verses to match our supposed understanding of the one.

Why isn't it just as good, from your argument, that if one verse says death, it means death and we have to make all the other verses also say death?

There is a coherent understanding of the bible as a whole, and it is not eternal torment. Everytime you attempt to say this verse shows eternal torment, you have to overlook what the verse actually says. "These pay the penalty of eternal destruction", but no you say this doesn't mean destruction it means torment. Really? Honestly, you are just banging your meaning into verses, no matter what they say. They are doubly dead, no says you, they are alive and in torment, Not dead or double dead. Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed by fire from heaven, but you say "No, they are alive and in torment.

I guess the bible says whatever you want it to say if you just ignore the words that written in it.

 

[Hillsage]

the fires were not in existence as to the trash heap so God must have meant the real deal. This proves it. Otherwise you have contradiction after contradiction.

Circular reasoning and chasing your tail. You still haven't answered the rest of my post. These 'one liners' are dead enders for discussion IMO.

 

[Soulgazer]

Varda Books :: Book Judaism and the Origins of Christianity Preview -- Online, Offline, PDF, FREE eBooks, Library - Judaic Digital Library (JDL)

 

[createdtoworship]

I guess the bible says whatever you want it to say if you just ignore the words that written in it.

It's called systematic theology

 

[Timothew]

There is a coherent understanding of the bible as a whole, and it is not eternal torment. Everytime you attempt to say this verse shows eternal torment, you have to overlook what the verse actually says. "These pay the penalty of eternal destruction", but no you say this doesn't mean destruction it means torment. Really? Honestly, you are just banging your meaning into verses, no matter what they say. They are doubly dead, no says you, they are alive and in torment, Not dead or double dead. Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed by fire from heaven, but you say "No, they are alive and in torment.

I guess the bible says whatever you want it to say if you just ignore the words that written in it.

It's called systematic theology

Ignoring the words written in the bible is called systematic theology?

 

[Soulgazer]

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

Philippians 4:8

This is genuine Paul. A couple things are notably absent from this statement. Scripture. When Paul wrote this, the only scripture in existence were the Greek, Roman, and Jewish scriptures. Paul sincerely believed that they were replaced if ever relevant, and as useful as yesterday's news.

Hell. Paul does not ask us to think about hell, and it is antithetical to what he does ask us to think about.


This is relevant to this conversation, in that asking us to think on the things of beauty, Paul is pointing out a way to know God and Christ. The opposite things are those things that are not of God and Christ, or "instead of(anti)-Christ". In discussing hell, or dwelling on such negative things, we end up treading on dangerous ground.

Stare too long into the abyss, and the abyss stares back.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ignoring the words written in the bible is called systematic theology?

adjusting the meanings of verses to suit the whole of scripture, otherwise you just have too many contradictions. It's what systematic theology does. How do you prove the trinity? You can't in just one verse. So you need to adjust it toward the verses that you can use. But in your situation you are doing it the wrong way. How do you prove a pre tribulation rapture? You can't in one verse you need systematic theology.

 

[Armistead14]

He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces. (Isaiah. 25: 8)

Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

Most of the estimated hundred billion people who have lived here on earth died without reading the Bible or knowing anything about Jesus. If most of mankind ends up going to "hell" then the gates of hell will have prevailed and Jesus will be just another inept, failed Messiah. How can Jesus be the Savior of the World unless all the world is saved?

For unto this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially believers. (1 Timothy 4:10)

This is only one of many Bible verses that say all men will be saved, and that God will be all in all (not all in some, or all in the self-proclaimed "chosen few"). Paul said that all Israel would be saved, agreeing with the prophet Ezekiel, who also said that the Gentile nations, including Sodom, would be saved in the end, linking their salvation to Israel's. Paul said that different people would be saved at different times, in stages, with Jesus being the Firstfruits of the resurrection.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

We know that all human beings die in Adam; this verse clearly says that the same "all" shall be made alive, in Christ.

All flesh shall see the salvation of God. (Luke3:6)

I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God. (Romans 8:38-39)

 

[Armistead14]

“Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

Philippians 4:8

This is genuine Paul. A couple things are notably absent from this statement. Scripture. When Paul wrote this, the only scripture in existence were the Greek, Roman, and Jewish scriptures. Paul sincerely believed that they were replaced if ever relevant, and as useful as yesterday's news.

Hell. Paul does not ask us to think about hell, and it is antithetical to what he does ask us to think about.


This is relevant to this conversation, in that asking us to think on the things of beauty, Paul is pointing out a way to know God and Christ. The opposite things are those things that are not of God and Christ, or "instead of(anti)-Christ". In discussing hell, or dwelling on such negative things, we end up treading on dangerous ground.

Stare too long into the abyss, and the abyss stares back.

It's generally accepted that Pau's writings came before the gospels. Isn't it strange he never taught or mentioned a place of eternal torture? Being the great evangelist, how could he leave out such important info?

 

[createdtoworship]

He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces. (Isaiah. 25: 8)

Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)

Most of the estimated hundred billion people who have lived here on earth died without reading the Bible or knowing anything about Jesus. If most of mankind ends up going to "hell" then the gates of hell will have prevailed and Jesus will be just another inept, failed Messiah. How can Jesus be the Savior of the World unless all the world is saved?

For unto this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially believers. (1 Timothy 4:10)

This is only one of many Bible verses that say all men will be saved, and that God will be all in all (not all in some, or all in the self-proclaimed "chosen few"). Paul said that all Israel would be saved, agreeing with the prophet Ezekiel, who also said that the Gentile nations, including Sodom, would be saved in the end, linking their salvation to Israel's. Paul said that different people would be saved at different times, in stages, with Jesus being the Firstfruits of the resurrection.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. (1 Corinthians 15:22)

We know that all human beings die in Adam; this verse clearly says that the same "all" shall be made alive, in Christ.

All flesh shall see the salvation of God. (Luke3:6)

I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God. (Romans 8:38-39)

the atonement is sufficient for all men but not actual for all men. Otherwise if all were saved they would not need to repent to be saved. (spoken of in hundreds of verses)

 

[createdtoworship]

It's generally accepted that Pau's writings came before the gospels. Isn't it strange he never taught or mentioned a place of eternal torture? Being the great evangelist, how could he leave out such important info?

Jesus hit that point pretty well I would say.