Let's Talk About Hell (4)

[WillieH]

umm.... but you did reply

No, ...a reply would be addressing what was said... and what was said was NONSENSE unworthy of a reply...


PEACE...




..willieH

 

[Sophrosyne]

I think this thread has been derailed long enough. I am going to limit my posting more to the topic of Hell now than dealing with this bickering.

 

[createdtoworship]

To anyone except "gradyll"... which has EARS to HEAR...



Wow! gradyll employs the deeply intellectual and spiritual, "I know you are but what am I?" method here, eh?

(1) listen to this guy? When has gradyll admitted AT ANY TIME, that he was wrong? About ANYTHING?

I do not seek "right or wrong", nor do I identify another as "right or wrong"...

I SEEK TRUTH... and REVELATION of that which GOD has for me to KNOW within my course, ...and to SHARE that information which.. as I see it MUST coincide with the premises of LOVE, REASON, and VICTORY...

Said information which contains these 3... will ALWAYS exalt YHVH God and His Son... Unfortunately, the MANY which claim to be followers of CHRIST -- Matt 5:22-23 -- Matt 24:5 -- will be teaching doctrine to the WORLD that GOD so (UNCHANGINGLY) LOVES, ...that which is comprised of OTHER than these THREE... Actively DECIEVING those to whom they preach.

(2) Instead of reaching out the hand of fellowship, this guy has IGNORED me and my words... Mostly because he really has no beliefs or understanding of his own which has been gained by PERSONAL fellowship with the MOST HIGH..-- Jer 29:14 -- It is a PERSONAL thing... and only those who PERSONALLY DEDICATE themselves to GOD, shall FIND Him...

MOST will find and embrace, ...the TRADITIONS of MEN, being too LAZY and UNDEDICATED to YHVH.

(3) Then gradyll has the audacity to complain that I don't have LOVE for him, when I have:

(a) NAMED him a ''SON of the MOST HIGH"? And,
(b) have noted I pray for him! And,
(c) have apologized to him on one occasion (which was ignored). And (d) have wished him the PEACE of God in each of my answers?

When has gradyll done ANY of these things toward me? (oh yeah, he wished me PEACE, ...an AMAZING and UNDERWHELMING... ONE TIME... )

(4) As far as naming gradyll a "ding dong", I calls'em as I see's'em... I mean no harm to this man... He and I have never met, so why should I be on an agenda to bring harm to him?

gradyll is busily naming others which are SEEKING God as "CULTS"... without ANY AUTHORITY to NAME CALL these people which are EVERY BIT as sincere, as gradyll considers himself...


(5) This man has also alluded to ME being RACIAL... when I have FIVE people in my IMMEDIATE FAMILY (4 Grandchildren, and son-in-law) that are BLACK...

Not only that, but, ...TWO of my BEST friends EVER are MEXICAN... I support 2 BLACK children which I have never met! I was raised in East Los Angeles, the literal MELTING POT of the RACES, in which my childhood friends were MORE of other RACES than my own... Some "racist"...

Gradyll is just a child, with NO BIBLICAL KNOWLEDGE of his own, whining continually as he brings against me, EXACTLY what HE does himself... So blind he cannot see his own HYPOCRITICAL state.

Recently He called my usage of "14 laughing smilies" = (total in TWO different posts), ...as RUDE, and indeed did himself, the very same thing to ME!

I guess because he only used "13 laughing smilies" (total in ONE POST)... I guess he was ONE "under the standard" of "RUDENESS"? Please! ...A HYPOCRITE of the highest order...




He COPIES this verse from wherever, but does not READ, nor apply it to himself...

Seeking to DEMEAN instead of HELP a brother which "he percieves" is in error. (more of this brand of HYPOCRISY to come )



No LOVE has come forth from gradyll toward me...

In fact, he is so OUT OF TOUCH with the premise of LOVE, that he even named to another (gossiping) that the CANCER which I am (3yrs) battling, is that which "I use" as an EXCUSE! ...can he be more in the dark? Somebody PLEASE lend him some light, as he will not listen to it from me!

Can gradyll be more disattached to the TRUE premise of LOVE, as well as be ANY MORE INDIFFERENT (which is the opposite of LOVE) than IS this misguided young man?

He quotes the WORD in vain, for he does not KNOW WHY the WORD exists, nor does he PRACTICE what he preaches toward others.

Here is another example of the MISUSE of the WORD, devoid from ANY semblance that can be called the GOSPEL:



Listen to this VENGENT and UNLOVING person! Seeking MY DESTRUCTION instead of showing me the "turn the other cheek" example, ABSENT in his own contention.

gradyll IS, what he IS... ...and what he IS, is a HYPOCRITE:

JESUS called the RELIGIOUS ONES (like the HYPOCRITE gradyll) which PROMOTED the TRADITIONS of MEN ...FOOLS (his own beliefs by his own admission being of the TRADITIONAL variety, which he COPIES from the "dallas the-ILLOGICAL cemetary") -- Matt 23:13-33

Failing to see the SCRIPTURES are not They which are to be USED as a WEAPON of DESTRUCTION... rather ...They are the DIVINE LETTER of LOVE, from the GOD which IS LOVE -- 1 John 4:8 -- which LOVES ALL men and is about the SAVING of ALL...

I am come in the NAME of CHRIST... and I DO as He DID... That gradyll complains of his SHAMEFULNESS being exposed, is not my problem...

Most TRADITIONAL people (Matt 15:6) are WITHOUT a "sense of humor", STIFF-NECKED... thinking themselves as "Holy"... and in that deception falling SHORT of KNOWING the LOVE of CHRIST -- Eph 3:19 --

Which is extended TO ALL PEOPLE -- 1 Tim 2:6 -- Luke 2:10 -- and which, in their DECIEVED hearts -- Jer 17:9 -- will NOT be KNOWN BY HIM -- Matt 7:22-23 -- instead, REJECTED by Him...


To be pitied and prayed for...


PEACE unto all which SEEK YHVH and His Son JESUS --


...willieH

I calls em as I sees them too, unloving in the highest order.

So am I demon possessed too, because I am angry?

You said that when the demons went into a herd of pigs that is was anger, not possession. So am I possessed too, now that I am angry at your lack of love toward others on this forum?

 

[Sophrosyne]

I calls em as I sees them too, unloving in the highest order.

So am I demon possessed too, because I am angry?

You said that when the demons went into a herd of pigs that is was anger, not possession. So am I possessed too, now that I am angry at your lack of love toward others on this forum?

Give it up..... you are only encouraging him.

 

[createdtoworship]

sophrosyne is right we have derailed from Hell long enough, here is something to enlighten us:

"2 KINGS 14:29—Are the dead asleep or conscious?
PROBLEM: As in this passage, the Bible often speaks of death as the time when one “sleeps with his fathers” (e.g., 1 Kings 2:10; 11:21, 43; 14:20, kjv). Jesus said, “Lazarus sleeps” (John 11:11) when he was “dead” (John 11:14). Paul speaks of believers who have “fallen asleep” in the Lord (1 Thes. 4:13; cf. 1 Cor. 15:51). Yet, in other places, the Bible speaks of persons being conscious in the presence of God after they die (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23; Rev. 6:9).

SOLUTION: The first set of verses refers to the body, and the second set to the soul. “Sleep” is an appropriate figure of speech for the death of the body since death is only temporary, awaiting the resurrection when the body will be awakened from its sleep. Further, both sleep and death have the same posture, lying down.
The Bible is very clear about the fact that the believer’s soul (spirit) survives death (Luke 12:4), is consciously present with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8) in a better place (Phil. 1:23) where other souls are talking (Matt. 17:3) and even praying (Rev. 6:9–10). Likewise, the unbeliever’s soul is in a place of conscious torment (Matt. 25:41; Luke 16:22–26; Rev. 19:20–20:15).

PSALM 37:9, 34—When the wicked are cut off, are they annihilated?
PROBLEM: The psalmist affirms that “evildoers shall be cut off.” Elsewhere (Ps. 73:27; Prov. 21:28), it says they will perish (see comments on 2 Thes. 1:9). But, does being cut off forever mean they will be annihilated?
SOLUTION: Being “cut off” does not mean to be annihilated. If it did, then the Messiah would have been annihilated when He died, since the same word (karath) is used of the death of the Messiah (in Dan. 9:26). But, we know that Christ was not annihilated, but lives on forever after His death (cf. Rev. 1:18; also see comments on 2 Thes. 1:9).

ECCLESIASTES 3:19—Is man’s fate the same as that of animals?
PROBLEM: Solomon seems to claim here that there is no difference between the death of humans and animals. “One thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other.” Yet Solomon asserts later that, unlike animals, when a human dies, “the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Ecc. 12:7). How can this conflict be explained?
SOLUTION: There are both similarities and differences between the death of animals and humans. In both cases, their bodies die and return to dust. Likewise, their death is certain, and both are powerless to prevent it. In these respects, the physical phenomena are the same for both humans and animals.
On the other hand, humans have immortal souls (spirits), and animals do not (Ecc. 12:7; cf. 3:21). Of no beasts does the Bible say, “to be absent from the body … [is] to be present with the Lord” (2 Cor. 5:8). Likewise, nowhere does the Bible speak of the resurrection of animals, as it does of all human beings (cf. John 5:28–29; Rev. 20:4–6). So there is a big difference in the spiritual realm between the death of humans and animals.

ECCLESIASTES 3:20–21—If there is life after death, why does Solomon declare that man has no advantage over the beasts?
PROBLEM: The Bible teaches that the soul survives death (Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8; Rev. 6:9). But, Ecclesiastes insists that “all go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust” (v. 20). Hence, “man has no advantage over beasts, for all is vanity” (3:19).
SOLUTION: The reference here is to the human body, not to the soul. Both men and beast die and their bodies return to dust. However, humans are different in that their soul “goes upward” (v. 21). In fact, Solomon speaks of “eternity” in the human heart (Ecc. 3:11) and of its immortality when he declares that at death “man goes to his eternal home” (12:5). He also emphasized that we should fear God because there is a day when “God will bring you into judgment” after this life (11:9). So Ecclesiastes is not denying life after death; it is warning about the futility of living only for this life “under the sun” (cf. 1:3, 13; 2:18). (See prior comments under 3:19.)

ECCLESIASTES 9:5—Do the dead remember anything?
PROBLEM: Taken at face value, Solomon seems to be claiming that the dead have no more knowledge of anything. He wrote here, “the dead know nothing.” Likewise, the psalmist said, “in death there is no remembrance” (Ps. 6:5). But, this seems to contradict the many passages that speak of souls being conscious after death (e.g., 2 Sam. 12:23; 2 Cor. 5:8; Rev. 6:9).
SOLUTION: The Bible teaches that the soul survives death in a conscious state of knowledge (see comments on 2 Kings 14:29). The passages which say there is no knowledge or remembrance after death are speaking of no memory in this world, not of no memory of this world. Solomon clearly qualified his comment by saying it was “in the grave” (Ecc. 9:10) that there was “no remembrance.” He affirmed also that the dead do not know what is going on “under the sun” (9:6). But while they do not know what is happening on earth, they certainly do know what is going on in heaven (cf. Rev. 6:9). In short, these texts refer simply to man in relation to this present life—they say nothing about the life to come immediately after this one.

ISAIAH 14:12—Who is Lucifer in this verse?
PROBLEM: Many commentators consider this passage to be a reference to Satan, because the name “Lucifer” is used. However, in Isaiah 14:4 this entire poetic section stretching from 14:4 through 14:27 is a proverb against the king of Babylon. How can this be a reference to Satan when it is against the king of Babylon?
SOLUTION: This passage is a literal reference to the king of Babylon, but its significance encompasses the ultimate defeat and fall of Satan. There have been many different views as to the identity of this king of Babylon. Some propose that this is a reference to Sennacherib, a fierce enemy of God’s people. Others see the poetic figure of personification in which the kingdom of Babylon as a whole is referred to in personal terms. The Hebrew word translated in the nkjv as “Lucifer” literally means “shining one.” Verse 12 could be translated “How you are fallen from heaven, O shining one, son of the morning.” Because the king of Babylon desired to set himself up as God, his fall would be as from heaven.
The parallels between this passage and such NT passages as Luke 10:18 and Revelation 20:2 indicate that this passage may have a broader application. The prophecy was given for those who lived in Isaiah’s day, and it had immediate significance for them. God was promising them that their enemy, the king of Babylon and the evil empire itself, would ultimately be torn down. Yet, the prophecy may have significance for us as a picture of the ultimate demise of the evil ruler of this world whom God will ultimately destroy (Rev. 20:10).

EZEKIEL 28:1—Who is the prince of Tyre?
PROBLEM: Many conservative scholars equate the prince of Tyre with Satan. However, such statements as “you are a man, and not a god” (28:2) indicate that this is a reference to a human prince, not to Satan. Who is the prince of Tyre?
SOLUTION: Evangelical scholars hold differing positions concerning the identity of the prince of Tyre. Some hold that the language in chapter 28 is highly poetic with figurative expressions that are designed to emphasize the arrogance of the prince of Tyre. These commentators understand this to be a human prince, although there is difference of opinion about exactly who this man would be. Some identify this prince as Ethbaal III who ruled from about 591 to about 572 b.c. Others identify him as Ithobal II, who may have been the same person under a different name. Some commentators propose that the language cannot be applied to any specific person, but is a personification of the city itself. The “king” serves as a symbol of the government and the people as a whole.
Other commentators propose that verses 1–11 refer to the human prince, but that verses 11–19 refer to Satan. Those who advocate this view point to the change of reference from “the prince (nagid) of Tyre” in verse 2, to “the king (melek) of Tyre” in verse 12. This change of reference from prince to king, coupled with such statements as “you were in Eden” (v. 13), “you were the anointed cherub” (v. 14), and “you were perfect in your ways from the day you were created” (v. 15) may indicate that this section is about Satan. To the contrary, others simply understand these phrases as hyperbolic (literary exaggeration) references to the human prince and king.
All conservative commentators agree, however, that chapter 28 is a prophecy against the city of Tyre and its ruler, whoever that might be. This ruler exalted himself above God and deserved the judgment that God would bring upon him. Although the specific identity of the prince and king of Tyre is a debated issue, the application of this passage extends to all those who exalt themselves in pride and arrogance against God, whether they be kings, demons, or common people. And, of course, Satan himself is the ultimate example of all such proud creatures (cf. 1 Tim. 3:6).

2 THESSALONIANS 1:9—Will the wicked be annihilated or suffer conscious punishment forever?
PROBLEM: In some passages of Scripture, like this one, it speaks of the wicked being “destroyed” by God, suffering “the second death” (Rev. 20:14), or going to “perdition” (2 Peter 3:7). Yet in other places, it speaks of them suffering conscious torment (e.g., Luke 16:22–28). Will unsaved persons be annihilated, or will they consciously suffer forever?
SOLUTION: “Destruction” does not mean annihilation here, otherwise it would not be “everlasting” destruction. Annihilation only takes an instant, and it is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction, then they have to have everlasting existence.
Furthermore, “death” does not mean annihilation, but separation. Adam and Eve died spiritually the moment they sinned, yet they still existed and could hear God’s voice (Gen. 2:17; cf. 3:10). Likewise, before one is saved, he is “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), and yet he is still in God’s image (Gen. 1:27; cf. 9:6; James 3:9) and is called on to believe (Acts 16:31) and to repent (Acts 17:30) and be saved.
Likewise, when the wicked are said to go into “perdition” (2 Peter 3:7), and Judas is called the “son of perdition” (John 17:12), it does not mean they will be annihilated. The word “perdition” (apōleia) simply means to perish or to come to ruin. But junk cars have perished in the sense of having been ruined. But they are still cars, ruined as they may be, and they are still in the junk yard. In this connection, Jesus spoke of hell as a junk yard or dump where the fire would not cease and where a person’s resurrected body would not be consumed (see comments on Mark 9:48).
Finally, there are several lines of evidence that support the everlasting consciousness of the lost. First, the rich man who died and went to hell was in conscious torment (Luke 16:22–28), and there is absolutely no indication in the text that it was ever going to cease.
Second, Jesus spoke repeatedly of the people in hell as “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30), which indicates they were conscious.
Third, hell is said to be of the same duration as heaven, namely, “everlasting” (Matt. 25:41).
Fourth, the fact that their punishment is everlasting indicates that they too must be everlasting. One cannot suffer punishment, unless a person exists to be punished (2 Thes. 1:9).
Fifth, the beast and the false prophet were thrown “alive” into the lake of fire at the beginning of the 1,000 years (Rev. 19:20), and they were still there, conscious and alive, after the 1,000 years (Rev. 20:10).
Sixth, the Scriptures affirm that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev. 20:10). But there is no way to experience torment forever and ever without being conscious for ever and ever.
Seventh, Jesus repeatedly referred to hell as a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:48), where the very bodies of the wicked will never die (cf. Luke 12:4–5). But it would make no sense to have everlasting flames and bodies without any souls in them to experience the torment.
Eighth, the same word used to describe the wicked perishing in the OT (abad) is used to describe the righteous perishing (see Isa. 57:1; Micah 7:2). The same word is used to describe things that are merely lost, but then later found (Deut. 22:3), which proves that “lost” does not here mean go out of existence. So, if perish means to annihilate, then the saved would have to be annihilated too. But we know they are not.
Ninth, it would be contrary to the created nature of human beings to annihilate them, since they are made in God’s image and likeness, which is everlasting (Gen. 1:27). For God to annihilate His image in man would be to attack the reflection of Himself.
Tenth, annihilation would be demeaning both to the love of God and to the nature of human beings as free moral creatures. It would be as if God said to them, “I will allow you to be free only if you do what I say! If you don’t, then I will snuff out your very freedom and existence!” This would be like a father telling his son he wanted him to be a doctor, and, when he chose instead to be a park ranger, the father shot him! Eternal suffering is an eternal testimony to the freedom and dignity of humans, even unrepentant humans."

from:
Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 493

Norman Geisler has a B.A, M.A., Th.B., and Ph.D (in philosophy). He has taught at some of the top Seminaries in the United States, including Trinity Evangelical and Dallas Seminary and currently he is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, CA (www.VeritasSeminary.com).

authored over 70 books and hundreds of articles here:

http://www.normangeisler.net/

 

[createdtoworship]

Give it up..... you are only encouraging him.

your right it's like casting pearls before swine.

 

[cupid dave]

In 1998 the pope said that hell is a mental state of mind...
... which does seem possible, and place where faith in religion could save nyou from...

 

[createdtoworship]

In 1998 the pope said that hell is a mental state of mind...
... which does seem possible, and place where faith in religion could save nyou from...

thats funny the catholic encyclopedia states that Hell is real and anything BUT a state of mind...

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hell

 

[cupid dave]

thats funny the catholic encyclopedia states that Hell is real and anything BUT a state of mind...

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hell

The pope is fallible?

 

[createdtoworship]

The pope is fallible?

sure thats why they have second editions of the catechism.....(because of previous fallibility)

remember vatican II?


here is the catechism on Hell


section 1034

"Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

from
Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 1 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 3 ARTICLE 12

 

[createdtoworship]

lets try a smaller nugget of truth:

regarding 2 THESSALONIANS 1:9
“Destruction” does not mean annihilation ..., otherwise it would not be “everlasting” destruction. Annihilation only takes an instant, and it is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction, then they have to have everlasting existence."

from:
Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 493

Norman Geisler has a B.A, M.A., Th.B., and Ph.D (in philosophy). He has taught at some of the top Seminaries in the United States, including Trinity Evangelical and Dallas Seminary and currently he is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, CA (Veritas Evangelical Seminary).

authored over 70 books and hundreds of articles here:

Dr. Norman Geisler

 

[Timothew]

lets try a smaller nugget of truth:

regarding 2 THESSALONIANS 1:9
“Destruction” does not mean annihilation ..., otherwise it would not be “everlasting” destruction. Annihilation only takes an instant, and it is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction, then they have to have everlasting existence."

from:
Geisler, Norman L. ; Howe, Thomas A.: When Critics Ask : A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties. Wheaton, Ill. : Victor Books, 1992, S. 493

Norman Geisler has a B.A, M.A., Th.B., and Ph.D (in philosophy). He has taught at some of the top Seminaries in the United States, including Trinity Evangelical and Dallas Seminary and currently he is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, CA (Veritas Evangelical Seminary).

authored over 70 books and hundreds of articles here:

Dr. Norman Geisler

The destruction is everlasting because the one who is destroyed remains destroyed forever.

Are you sure that you want to continue the debate? This attempt seemed a little half-hearted.

(Timothew has a B.S. and has read over 70 books and articles. )

 

[createdtoworship]

The destruction is everlasting because the one who is destroyed remains destroyed forever.

Are you sure that you want to continue the debate? This attempt seemed a little half-hearted.

Geislers definition of everlasting has more support from scripture than your double negative definition.

Dan 12:2 (2) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and • everlasting contempt.

this says that after the resurrection of the wicked, they shall have everlasting contempt. Why would this be needed if they were dead already? If death was the only contempt or destruction, there is no need for a resurrection of the wicked. They are dead already!

(Timothew has a B.S. and has read over 70 books and articles. )

reading seventy books and writing seventy are two completely different things, I hope you were not comparing your qualifications. If you were you are lacking severely. Not many people have written seventy books, many people have read that many.

 

[Merlinius]

I used to believe that hell was a fiery place of everlasting torment. When I was a kid that is, and before I got a concordance and before I learned how to read the Bible.
It is just a matter of maturity.

 

[createdtoworship]

I used to believe that hell was a fiery place of everlasting torment. When I was a kid that is, and before I got a concordance and before I learned how to read the Bible.
It is just a matter of maturity.

funny, I believe maturity is taking the word of God literally and at face value. Thats the first line of hermeneutical study. If God wanted to speak in riddles He could have, but He didn't.

 

[WillieH]

HAPPY THANKSGIVING to ALL -- willieH

I calls em as I sees them too, unloving in the highest order.

So am I demon possessed too, because I am angry?

You said that when the demons went into a herd of pigs that is was anger, not possession. So am I possessed too, now that I am angry at your lack of love toward others on this forum?

HERM has DISREGARDED these teachings in the WORD OPENLY LYING and BEARING FALSE WITNESS on MANY occasions, and ADMITTING to that failure in the above quote:

Col 3:8-9 -- But now ye also PUT OFF ALL THESE: ANGER, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication OUT of YOUR MOUTH... LIE NOT one to another seeing that ye have PUT OF the OLD MAN with his deeds... And have PUT ON the NEW MAN, wihch is renewed in knowedge after the IMAGE of Him that CREATED him...

NOT adhering to this, only bears witness to the condition of HERM's heart.

PEACE unto ALL ---


...willieH

 

[Sophrosyne]

funny, I believe maturity is taking the word of God literally and at face value. Thats the first line of hermeneutical study. If God wanted to speak in riddles He could have, but He didn't.

I just pray those that don't believe in an everlasting Hell don't end up there because they did not fear God's wrath.

 

[Merlinius]

funny, I believe maturity is taking the word of God literally and at face value. Thats the first line of hermeneutical study. If God wanted to speak in riddles He could have, but He didn't.

Lol, there's your problem then. It's called "parables" though, not "riddles". And that is the ONLY way He spoke;

(Mat 13:34) All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

 

[createdtoworship]

Lol, there's your problem then. It's called "parables" though, not "riddles". And that is the ONLY way He spoke;

(Mat 13:34) All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

parables were only spoken to the multitude not to the disciples. The disciples were given the interpretations to the parables, thus nullifying their effect to hide truth. Hear the word of God concerning this matter...


Matthew 13:10-11 NKJV

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

Secondly, for us as disciples we must understand the interpretations of scripture, you seem a little fuzzy on this matter so here is a little clip on hermeneutics:

D.L. Cooper gives a reasonable definition of normal interpretation in his Golden Rule of Interpretation:

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense, therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise.—The Golden Rule of Interpretation, D.L. Cooper3

Those who are committed to a normal reading of Scripture offer at least three reasons: First, the obvious purpose of language is to enable effective communication between intelligent beings. Words have meaning and in their normal usage are intended to be understood. . . . God is the originator of language. When He spoke audibly to man, He expected man to understand Him and respond accordingly. Likewise, when God speaks to man through the inspired writings of His apostles and prophets, He expects man to understand and respond accordingly. 6

Sources of research:
3 J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), 44.
6 Mal Couch, Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications), 36-37.

clip from BibleStudyTools.com on Hermeneutics

The Art and Science of Interpretation

 

[Sophrosyne]

parables were only spoken to the multitude not to the disciples. The disciples were given the interpretations to the parables, thus nullifying their effect to hide truth. Hear the word of God concerning this matter...


Matthew 13:10-11 NKJV

10 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?”
11 He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.

If parables are about the kingdom of heaven, then hell is part of that kingdom if it is a parable. If hell is a part of the kingdom of heaven then that makes it harder to say those who don't go to "heaven" are annihilated because that would no longer be completely true.