• 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.

Let's Talk About Hell

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tangible

Decision Theology = Ex Opere Operato
May 29, 2009
9,837
1,416
cruce tectum
Visit site
✟67,243.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Certainly.

Our sins have been atoned for by the blood of Christ. That atonement however, will not extend to the unrepentant sinner. Sin if you will sticks to you like a bad sore, or a tumor even. If the sinner is not destroyed than that means that sin still exists because it will still exist in the sinner.

Did that help?
Have you now or could you ever specifically repent for every sin of commission and omission that you have committed or ever will commit? By your definition of repentance, even the most forgettable, unconscious sin if left unrepented for would be enough to damn someone for all eternity.

You are using an unbiblical definition of repentance. Repentance is a response to God's justifying work in us, not a work that we do to either earn or keep our justification. Only Christ's work on the cross is sufficient to atone for our sins.

Christ atoned for the sins of the whole world, past present and future (1 John 2:2). Because of the atonement, justification is an objective reality. We individually receive subjective justification through the means of grace - through God's living and active Word and through the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion.

God's justification produces in us love for God, the faith that receives our free gift of salvation, repentance as we live each day as a baptized child of the Living God, the desire to put to death the old man so that the new man may daily arise in us in all righteousness, humility and truth, and the desire to pray, praise, and thank God for the many gifts he has bestowed upon us.

Those who have not been subjectively justified, or who have rejected their justification through the persistent apostasy of unbelief cannot participate in Christ's forgiveness of sins and are fully accountable before God for every sin they have ever committed, and eternally condemned as a result.

Here's a question: Is it possible for those who are lost to continue sinning after physical death?
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟39,339.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
-snip-

Those who have not been subjectively justified, or who have rejected their justification through the persistent apostasy of unbelief cannot participate in Christ's forgiveness of sins and are fully accountable before God for every sin they have ever committed, and eternally condemned as a result.
I'm pretty sure that's what I was saying.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "atonement" that may have been what caused confusion.

Here's a question: Is it possible for those who are lost to continue sinning after physical death?
Well since the only kind of death one can die is a physical death, no. It is for that reason that they will be destroyed.
 
Upvote 0

Stryder06

Check the signature
Jan 9, 2009
13,856
519
✟39,339.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I believe in three ages; still not grasping where the third resurrection comes in.

Let me try to diagram the two paths I believe in:

Repentant -> First Death -> Resurrected with immortal Body -> Receives the special reward of life in the age to come -> Continues on to the time when all souls are reunited with God.

Unrepentant -> First Death -> Resurrected with a mortal Body -> Punished -> Mortal Body undergoes the Second Death -> Resurrected to reunite with God in the third age.

That's it in a nutshell. I believe the bodies of those in the second death totally and completely cease to be. Just like our mortal bodies will cease to be.

In short: the Repentant suffer one mortal body. The unrepentant two - hence "the second death".

Now, you've earned my respect as being someone knowledgable. And I hope I've earned yours. So let's just dive in mano y mano. Okay?

While I think I'm following your chain of logic, it pains me to say that it is completely unbiblical. Let's look at what the bible says:
1 Cor 15
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Thes 4
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev 20
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[a] thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

9. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

15. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

So if we look at the chain of events we see that when Christ returns we will have righteous living who will be caught up with the righteous dead. These will be taken to heaven while the rest will be dead (Jer 25:33). Go to Revelation and we see the righteous reigning with Christ for 1k years while the rest of the dead remain that way until the end. Once the 1k years are ended we see the wicked consumed by fire when they come up against the city.

After that John sees the new heaven and new earth. Sin is vanquished and peace is restored. For the wicked to "get out" you'd have to have a third resurrection, which is why I was asking you about that.
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟23,551.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
While I think I'm following your chain of logic, it pains me to say that it is completely unbiblical. Let's look at what the bible says:
1 Cor 15
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Thes 4
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev 20
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[a] thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

9. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

15. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

So if we look at the chain of events we see that when Christ returns we will have righteous living who will be caught up with the righteous dead. These will be taken to heaven while the rest will be dead (Jer 25:33). Go to Revelation and we see the righteous reigning with Christ for 1k years while the rest of the dead remain that way until the end. Once the 1k years are ended we see the wicked consumed by fire when they come up against the city.

After that John sees the new heaven and new earth. Sin is vanquished and peace is restored. For the wicked to "get out" you'd have to have a third resurrection, which is why I was asking you about that.

I know you are sincere when you say my beliefs are unbiblical, so I won't take personal offence.

Paul mentions in Ephesions there are two or more ages ahead. Let's see if we first agree on that, and I'll try to fill in a timeline that answers all three of your verses. I promised you in the past, and kept my word. I'm not avoiding your verses, just trying to lay some groundwork so we can see who's timeline is 'biblical' or not. Okay?

So that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. - Ephesians 2:7
And are you willing to play a game with me? Can I try to walk you down my logic path to see if you can knock me off it? It'll be fun.

And if you are willing, do agree Paul wrote there are "ages (plural) to come"?
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟23,551.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
While I think I'm following your chain of logic, it pains me to say that it is completely unbiblical. Let's look at what the bible says:
1 Cor 15
51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1 Thes 4
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.

Rev 20
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a[a] thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 6is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.

9. They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

15. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

So if we look at the chain of events we see that when Christ returns we will have righteous living who will be caught up with the righteous dead. These will be taken to heaven while the rest will be dead (Jer 25:33). Go to Revelation and we see the righteous reigning with Christ for 1k years while the rest of the dead remain that way until the end. Once the 1k years are ended we see the wicked consumed by fire when they come up against the city.

After that John sees the new heaven and new earth. Sin is vanquished and peace is restored. For the wicked to "get out" you'd have to have a third resurrection, which is why I was asking you about that.

Let me give you a heads up why I asked you about the ages. I'll tip my hand. I'm not afraid.

In your model of the world, there are two ages:
The Current Age
The Eternal Age
And you interpret the three passages from that perspective. I will humbly submit that you are the one who doesn't have a biblical model. The Bible specifically references coming ages (plural). I submit the biblical model is:

The Age of Decision (The Current Age)
The Age of Separation (The New Heaven and New Earth)
The Age of Reconciliation (When God is all in all)
There, I have shown you my cards. But before we can determine who has the correct biblical interpretation of your verses, we must first determine who has the correct biblical model, or not.
 
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
I'm not asking you to play a game, I'm simply asking you to have a dialogue. Now, regarding your claim that " Matt 5:24-26 has nothing to do with the fate of the wicked after death." Let's begin our dialogue by seeing if you are right or not.

Let me share the context with you:

"but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore - Matthew 5:22,23a

Please notice the word 'therefore'. The word 'therefore' shows the upcoming parable is illuminating the topic at hand - hell (Gehenna in Koine).

So, with the context in mind, let me paraphrase the passage:

1. Be right with your neighbor you will go to hell.

2. Therefore, if you have something against your brother, make it right with him you'll be thrown into prison (the metaphor).

3. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you pay the last penny.

The context of "getting out after you pay the last penny" is truly within a metaphor about Gehenna (hell). Really.

And if you mischaracterized the verse I referenced, isn't it within the realm of possibility your mischaracterizing the ones you believe contradict this metaphor about hell?

I have not mischaracterized anything, I already knew you believed Matt 5:24-26 refers to the fate of the wicked, merely repeating what I already know does NOT make your argument any more compelling. Here is the problem, as I see it, you have one out-of-context proof text, you keep repeating it over and over and over insisting that this one verse is the key verse and controls the interpretation of every other verse.
John Gill's Commentary - Mat 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly,.... These words are not to be understood in an allegorical sense, as if "the adversary" was the justice of God, demanding payment of debts; "the way", this present life; "the judge", God himself; "the officer", the devil; "the prison", the pit of hell; and "the uttermost farthing", the least sin, which will never be remitted without satisfaction: but the design of them is to prevent lawsuits about debts, which may be in dispute; it being much better for debtor and creditor, especially the former, to compose such differences among themselves, than to litigate the matter in a court of judicature. By "the adversary" is meant not an enemy, one that bears hatred and ill will, but a brother that has ought against a man; a creditor, who demands and insists upon payment of what is owing to him; and for this purpose has taken methods towards bringing the debtor before a proper magistrate, in order to oblige him to payment: wherefore it is better for him to make up and agree the matter directly, as soon as possible,

whilst thou art in the way with him; that is, whilst the creditor and debtor are going together to some inferior magistrate, or lesser court, as the sanhedrim, which consisted of three persons only, before whom such causes might be tried: for דיני ממונות בשלושה, pecuniary causes, or causes relating to money matters, were tried "by the bench of three" (g): and the selfsame advice is given in the Talmud (h), as here, where it seems to be a common proverb; for it is said,

"there are men that say, or men usually say, אגב אורחך לבעל דבבך אישתמע, "whilst thou art in the way with thine adversary, be obedient".''

Lest at any time the adversary should deliver thee to the judge, a superior magistrate in a higher court; for if the creditor would, he could oblige the debtor to go with him to the supreme court of judicature, and try the cause there; for so say the Jewish (i); canons:

"if the creditor says we will go to the great sanhedrim, they compel the debtor, and he goes up with them, as it is said, "the borrower is servant to the lender",''

where it might go harder with the poor debtor; and therefore it was advisable to prevent it by an agreement, lest the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison,

"It was an affirmative command in the law, says Maimonides, to appoint "judges" and "officers" in every country and province, as it is said, Deu_16:18. שופטים, "judges" they are the judges that are fixed in the sanhedrim, and such that engage in law suits come before them: שוטרים, "officers"; these are the masters of the rod and scourge, i.e. who beat and scourge delinquents; and these stand before the judges--and all they do, is by the order of the judges.''

Now it is one of these that is meant by "the officer"; in Munster's Hebrew Gospel, he is called שוטר; who, when he had authority from the judge, could cast into prison, and that for debt; of which we have no account in the law of Moses.

(g) Misn. Sanhedrim, c. 1. sect. 1. (h) T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 95. 2. (i) Maimof. Hilch. Sanhedrim, c. 6. sect. 7.​
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟23,551.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I have not mischaracterized anything, I already knew you believed Matt 5:24-26 refers to the fate of the wicked, merely repeating what I already know does NOT make your argument any more compelling. Here is the problem, as I see it, you have one out-of-context proof text, you keep repeating it over and over and over insisting that this one verse is the key verse and controls the interpretation of every other verse.
John Gill's Commentary - Mat 5:25 Agree with thine adversary quickly,.... These words are not to be understood in an allegorical sense, as if "the adversary" was the justice of God, demanding payment of debts; "the way", this present life; "the judge", God himself; "the officer", the devil; "the prison", the pit of hell; and "the uttermost farthing", the least sin, which will never be remitted without satisfaction: but the design of them is to prevent lawsuits about debts, which may be in dispute; it being much better for debtor and creditor, especially the former, to compose such differences among themselves, than to litigate the matter in a court of judicature. By "the adversary" is meant not an enemy, one that bears hatred and ill will, but a brother that has ought against a man; a creditor, who demands and insists upon payment of what is owing to him; and for this purpose has taken methods towards bringing the debtor before a proper magistrate, in order to oblige him to payment: wherefore it is better for him to make up and agree the matter directly, as soon as possible,

whilst thou art in the way with him; that is, whilst the creditor and debtor are going together to some inferior magistrate, or lesser court, as the sanhedrim, which consisted of three persons only, before whom such causes might be tried: for דיני ממונות בשלושה, pecuniary causes, or causes relating to money matters, were tried "by the bench of three" (g): and the selfsame advice is given in the Talmud (h), as here, where it seems to be a common proverb; for it is said,

"there are men that say, or men usually say, אגב אורחך לבעל דבבך אישתמע, "whilst thou art in the way with thine adversary, be obedient".''

Lest at any time the adversary should deliver thee to the judge, a superior magistrate in a higher court; for if the creditor would, he could oblige the debtor to go with him to the supreme court of judicature, and try the cause there; for so say the Jewish (i); canons:

"if the creditor says we will go to the great sanhedrim, they compel the debtor, and he goes up with them, as it is said, "the borrower is servant to the lender",''

where it might go harder with the poor debtor; and therefore it was advisable to prevent it by an agreement, lest the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison,

"It was an affirmative command in the law, says Maimonides, to appoint "judges" and "officers" in every country and province, as it is said, Deu_16:18. שופטים, "judges" they are the judges that are fixed in the sanhedrim, and such that engage in law suits come before them: שוטרים, "officers"; these are the masters of the rod and scourge, i.e. who beat and scourge delinquents; and these stand before the judges--and all they do, is by the order of the judges.''

Now it is one of these that is meant by "the officer"; in Munster's Hebrew Gospel, he is called שוטר; who, when he had authority from the judge, could cast into prison, and that for debt; of which we have no account in the law of Moses.

(g) Misn. Sanhedrim, c. 1. sect. 1. (h) T. Bab. Sanhedrim, fol. 95. 2. (i) Maimof. Hilch. Sanhedrim, c. 6. sect. 7.


You can claim "out-of-context" without backing it up; and you did.

When I claimed "out-of-context" I backed up my words. I showed you the link (the word 'therefore') that contextualizes the metaphor.

Hopefully, I will have a useful dialogue with Stryder. He does seem to try address my points as much as I try to address his. You have done nothing to address my point of the connection of the metaphor with Gehenna.

Just cutting and pasting a bunch of commentary is only useful if the commentary is addressing the point raised. Where in the commentary is there a mention of the linkage of the metaphor with the topic of Gehenna? Where in the commentary is an acknowledgment of the linkage word 'therefore' followed by a disproval of the overall implications of that word?

I've raised a valid point. And by the way, the early Church Fathers such as Theodore of Mopsuestia used to quote this verse as proof of universal salvation.

And you are aware that four out of the first five Koine Christian theological schools all taught universal salvation? It doesn't cause you to pause for a moment when 80% of the theological schools that shared the same native language as the New Testament taught the opposite of what you believe? What would they know, they were only reading the Bible in their own native language. Right?
 
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
When Jesus walked the earth, the Jews threw their garbage into the valley just outside the city of Jerusalem. The name of this valley was Gehenna. The garbage in Gehenna burned day and night – its fire never came to an end.

In addition to continual fire, the Gehenna garbage dump was constantly teaming with maggots which feasted on the constant supply of discarded animal parts. In the valley called Gehenna, just outside the city of Jerusalem, the fire never came to an end and the worm population never died.

Why this geography lesson? Because the word translated as ‘hell’ in the modern Bible is the Greek word ‘Gehenna’ – the name of the garbage dump just outside of Jerusalem.

I have already addressed this in another post with a citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Early in Jewish history, before the time of Christ, "'Gehenna' therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for 'hell.'"

According to modern Bibles, Jesus supposedly said:

* Hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. – Mark 9:47c-48 NASB

But what Jesus actually said was:

* Gehenna, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. – Mark 9:47c-48 Literal Greek

Why is the wording so important? It’s important because there is only one place in the entire Jewish scriptures where Gehenna is mentioned. So we don’t have to sift through a lot of information to figure out what the Jews believed about it. For it is mentioned only once.

According to Jewish sources Gehenna was synonymous with hell.

Gehenna is described in the prophet Isaiah’s prophecy regarding the New Heaven and New Earth. In this prophecy he describes the New Jerusalem, and he gives a prophecy about the valley outside it. He describes the valley of Gehenna. Regarding Gehenna, Isaiah prophesied:

* And it shall be from new moon to new moon … their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched. – Isaiah 66:22-23 NASB

Isaiah does NOT mention or describe Gehenna/the valley of Hinnom, and does not indicate any specific place where this occurs.

And we have a problem of quoting out-of-context here. What his verse actually says is,
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.​
Keil-Delitszch Hebrew Commentary Isa 66:23
“And it will come to pass: from new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh will come, to worship before me, saith Jehovah.” New moons and Sabbaths will still be celebrated therefore; and the difference is simply this, that just as all Israel once assembled in Jerusalem at the three great feasts, all flesh now journey to Jerusalem every new moon and every Sabbath. דַּי (construct דֵּי) signifies that which suffices, then that which is plentiful (see Isa_40:16), that which is due or fitting, so that (שַׁבָת) חֹדֶשׁ מִדֵּי (with a temporal, not an explanatory min, as Gesenius supposes) signifies “from the time when, or as often as what is befitting to the new moon (or Sabbath) occurs” (cf., Isa_28:19). If (בשׁבת) בחדשׁ be added, בְּ is that of exchange: as often as new moon (Sabbath) for new moon (Sabbath) is befitting, i.e., ought to occur: 1Sa_7:16; Zec_14:16 (cf., 1Sa_1:7; 1Ki_10:25; 1Ch_27:1 : “year by year,” “month by month”). When we find (בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ) בְּחָדְשׁוֹ as we do here, the meaning is, “as often as it has to occur on one new moon (or Sabbath) after the other,” i.e., in the periodical succession of one after another.
Most Christians are not aware that Jesus quoted from the prophet Isaiah’s prophecy when he spoke of “Gehenna, where their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched.” And they are even less aware that Isaiah’s prophecy says their worm will not die from new moon to new moon and their fire will not be quenched from new moon to new moon. Most Christians are unaware there was a specified time limit.

Isaiah does not specifically mention or describe Gehenna/the valley of Hinnom. The phrase "from new moon to new moon" means "month to month" and "from Sabbath to Sabbath" means "week to week." Isaiah used both phrases. You omitted the latter phrase, "from Sabbath to Sabbath".

So what exactly is the amount of time expressed by the phrase “new moon to new moon”? The answer is quite simple. The early Jews measure time based on lunar cycles. The period of one lunar year was one new moon to its same new moon. The prophet Isaiah symbolized the time limit of Gehenna as one lunar year. In modern English, Isaiah’s prophecy reads:

* And it shall be for twelve months … their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched.

So that’s how the passage really reads? Absolutely. And this is why the early Jewish Rabbinic literature said:

* The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna is twelve months. – Shabbat 33b

And another early Jewish Rabbinic writing said:

* The judgment of the unrighteous in Gehenna shall endure twelve months, for it is written, “It will be from one moon until its moon.” – Eduyoth 2:10

The Rabbinic author above understood the reference to the lunar year, for the above author wrote at a time when the Jews still measured time based on lunar cycles. Unfortunately, modern translators are unfamiliar with the early Jewish lunar cycles and therefore do not convert the Jewish idiom into a modern English equivalent. Conversion of cultural idioms is an absolute essential of proper translation.

Only one Talmud rabbi held the view that "The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna is twelve months." Other Talmudic writers held the view that the punishment was eternal.

But proper translation certainly creates a dilemma. For the Christian believer must assume that Jesus would never contradict Isaiah. The Christian believer must assume that Jesus and Isaiah were in total agreement. Therefore the Christian believer must conclude that Jesus was speaking about the symbolic twelve months where their worm shall not die and their fire will not be quenched.

How long exactly? I guess we’ll never know. But certainly a symbolic twelve months doesn’t even begin to support the notion of a punishment that lasts for eternity.

You have not provided us a proper translation of Isaiah. You have clearly omitted part of what Isaiah said which proves your interpretation wrong. Isaiah did not specifically name or describe Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, and the terms, "from one new moon to another", and "from one sabbath to another" mean month to month and week to week, NOT twelve months.
 
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
You can claim "out-of-context" without backing it up; and you did.

I showed how your repeated allusion was out-of-context by quoting John Gill a renowned 8th century Hebrew and Aramaic scholar.

When I claimed "out-of-context" I backed up my words. I showed you the link (the word 'therefore') that contextualizes the metaphor.

And I showed you how your contexualization was wrong from Gill.

Hopefully, I will have a useful dialogue with Stryder. He does seem to try address my points as much as I try to address his. You have done nothing to address my point of the connection of the metaphor with Gehenna.

This is just you getting your shorts in a twist because I will not simply accept your explanations! Try reading my posts where I address the specific points .
Just cutting and pasting a bunch of commentary is only useful if the commentary is addressing the point raised. Where in the commentary is there a mention of the linkage of the metaphor with the topic of Gehenna? Where in the commentary is an acknowledgment of the linkage word 'therefore' followed by a disproval of the overall implications of that word?

Where is your evidence that you are correct about your so-called contexualization of the word "therefore" and that somehow links everything to Gehenna?

I've raised a valid point. And by the way, the early Church Fathers such as Theodore of Mopsuestia used to quote this verse as proof of universal salvation.

Vague allusion with NO, ZERO, NONE evidence!

And you are aware that four out of the first five Koine Christian theological schools all taught universal salvation? It doesn't cause you to pause for a moment when 80% of the theological schools that shared the same native language as the New Testament taught the opposite of what you believe? What would they know, they were only reading the Bible in their own native language. Right?

I am aware that is stated in the Schaff Herzog dictionary but I am also aware that there is very very little evidence to support universalism in the writings of the early church. Since you are so impressed with this information about the early Theological schools, do you have any other evidence?
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟23,551.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I have already addressed this in another post with a citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Early in Jewish history, before the time of Christ, "'Gehenna' therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for 'hell.'"



According to Jewish sources Gehenna was synonymous with hell.



Isaiah does NOT mention or describe Gehenna/the valley of Hinnom, and does not indicate any specific place where this occurs.

And we have a problem of quoting out-of-context here. What his verse actually says is,
Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.
Keil-Delitszch Hebrew Commentary Isa 66:23
“And it will come to pass: from new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh will come, to worship before me, saith Jehovah.” New moons and Sabbaths will still be celebrated therefore; and the difference is simply this, that just as all Israel once assembled in Jerusalem at the three great feasts, all flesh now journey to Jerusalem every new moon and every Sabbath. דַּי (construct דֵּי) signifies that which suffices, then that which is plentiful (see Isa_40:16), that which is due or fitting, so that (שַׁבָת) חֹדֶשׁ מִדֵּי (with a temporal, not an explanatory min, as Gesenius supposes) signifies “from the time when, or as often as what is befitting to the new moon (or Sabbath) occurs” (cf., Isa_28:19). If (בשׁבת) בחדשׁ be added, בְּ is that of exchange: as often as new moon (Sabbath) for new moon (Sabbath) is befitting, i.e., ought to occur: 1Sa_7:16; Zec_14:16 (cf., 1Sa_1:7; 1Ki_10:25; 1Ch_27:1 : “year by year,” “month by month”). When we find (בְּשַׁבַּתּוֹ) בְּחָדְשׁוֹ as we do here, the meaning is, “as often as it has to occur on one new moon (or Sabbath) after the other,” i.e., in the periodical succession of one after another.


Isaiah does not specifically mention or describe Gehenna/the valley of Hinnom. The phrase "from new moon to new moon" means "month to month" and "from Sabbath to Sabbath" means "week to week." Isaiah used both phrases. You omitted the latter phrase, "from Sabbath to Sabbath".



Only one Talmud rabbi held the view that "The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna is twelve months." Other Talmudic writers held the view that the punishment was eternal.



You have not provided us a proper translation of Isaiah. You have clearly omitted part of what Isaiah said which proves your interpretation wrong. Isaiah did not specifically name or describe Gehenna, or the valley of Hinnom, and the terms, "from one new moon to another", and "from one sabbath to another" mean month to month and week to week, NOT twelve months.

My goodness, where do you get your stuff from.

For a moment I'll ignore you've brushed aside my Matthew reference.

Jesus specifically said, "Gehenna where their worm does not die...". Jesus named the valley when he quoted Isaiah's prophecy about the valley; the valley outside Jerusalem; the valley named Gehenna. No?

And even though I quoted Jewish sources, who knew their own language, you already know better than them. You found something they didn't know - the Sabbath by Sabbath part. I guessed they missed it?

Let me see if I can help you.

All next year, sunday by sunday, I will go church and sing hymns.

Oh my goodness, do I mean 'one year' or does the Sunday by Sunday negate the one year? Huh?

My friend, please fill in the following blank:

The ancient Jews measured time by lunar cycles. They expressed the period of one lunar year by the expression _______________________.

Hint: One moon to its same moon.

Try to google:

Gehenna twelve months
Gehenna 12 months

 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟23,551.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I showed how your repeated allusion was out-of-context by quoting John Gill a renowned 8th century Hebrew and Aramaic scholar.



And I showed you how your contexualization was wrong from Gill.



This is just you getting your shorts in a twist because I will not simply accept your explanations! Try reading my posts where I address the specific points .


Where is your evidence that you are correct about your so-called contexualization of the word "therefore" and that somehow links everything to Gehenna?



Vague allusion with NO, ZERO, NONE evidence!



I am aware that is stated in the Schaff Herzog dictionary but I am also aware that there is very very little evidence to support universalism in the writings of the early church. Since you are so impressed with this information about the early Theological schools, do you have any other evidence?

I'm going to levy the same criticism I levied against you before. I trust you are aware of the limitations of the sources you cut and paste?

I provide you with quotes from Jewish sources during the time Jews were using the lunar cycles to measure time.

Then you cut and paste a guy who wrote commentaries during the late nineteenth century. Really?

Do you know how frustrating it is to spend months tracking down ancient sources for proper translation, only to have an inappropriate source quoted as if it somehow negates the ancient writings? Do you really want to say the people who wrote during ancient times didn't know their own language - rather this nineteenth century theologian did?

The ancient Rabinnic writings document one lunar year. Please show me an ancient source that says otherwise; not some nineteenth century theologian's opinion that contradicts what the ancients themselves wrote. Deal?
 
Upvote 0

mwood30

Mickey
Dec 13, 2009
814
19
Visit site
✟23,551.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I showed how your repeated allusion was out-of-context by quoting John Gill a renowned 8th century Hebrew and Aramaic scholar.



And I showed you how your contexualization was wrong from Gill.



This is just you getting your shorts in a twist because I will not simply accept your explanations! Try reading my posts where I address the specific points .


Where is your evidence that you are correct about your so-called contexualization of the word "therefore" and that somehow links everything to Gehenna?



Vague allusion with NO, ZERO, NONE evidence!



I am aware that is stated in the Schaff Herzog dictionary but I am also aware that there is very very little evidence to support universalism in the writings of the early church. Since you are so impressed with this information about the early Theological schools, do you have any other evidence?

By the way, this is the third time you have done this.

I discuss the first century meaning of the word Gehenna.

You use The Jewish Encycopedia which discusses what Gehenna meant over many centuries as somehow being an appropriate countersource.

I discuss the linguistics that connect esus' metaphor about getting out after you pay the last penny with the word Gehenna.

You cut and paste a commentary that doesn't even address the linguistic connection. Your commentary cut and paste ignored the linguistic connection as dutifully as you did yourself. You did not cite a commentary that addressed the point I made.

I quote two ancient Jewish writings documenting what the lunar cycle phrase meant during the period when Jews measured time in lunar cycles.

You cut and paste a lengthy commentary from nineteenth century theologians who supposedly know more than the Jews of the time period I referenced?

This is strike number three. You have lost all credibility with me.

Post all you want, I will not rebut. If someone else wants to accept your references, okay. That's life. It's no fun trying to discuss with someone who yanks one inappropriate reference after another.

Have a good night. I'm logging off.
 
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
My goodness, where do you get your stuff from.

For a moment I'll ignore you've brushed aside my Matthew reference.

When did I do this? Your adamant refusal to read/address what I post then claiming I did not address your so-called points does not make it true.

Jesus specifically said, "Gehenna where their worm does not die...". Jesus named the valley when he quoted Isaiah's prophecy about the valley; the valley outside Jerusalem; the valley named Gehenna. No?

Very good, now show me where Isaiah specifically mentioned or described Gehenna/the valley of Hinnom? And when you have done that show me where Jesus indicated that his references to the undying worm and unquenched fire was only for twelve months, w since Isaiah makes no such claim.

And even though I quoted Jewish sources, who knew their own language, you already know better than them. You found something they didn't know - the Sabbath by Sabbath part. I guessed they missed it?

Your so-called Jewish sources were irrelevant! They did NOT address Isaiah 66:23-24. And OBTW your so-called Jewish sources were supposedly from the Talmud where you to actually read my citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia you would see that it cited the Talmud several times and you blew off the JE as irrelevant because it was supposedly not from the relevant time.

Let me see if I can help you.

All next year, sunday by sunday, I will go church and sing hymns.

Oh my goodness, do I mean 'one year' or does the Sunday by Sunday negate the one year? Huh?

Oh my goodness, an irrelevant made up example from today when you blew off my citations from Gill and the Jewish Encyclopedia which both cited the Talmud. Since you have shown no expertise in Hebrew or Greek your opinion of renowned scholars such as Keil and Delitszch is meaningless.

My friend, please fill in the following blank:

The ancient Jews measured time by lunar cycles. They expressed the period of one lunar year by the expression _______________________.

I told you I don't play silly games! You have NOT posted a Jewish source, which can be readily verified, which states the Lunar cycle is one moon to its same moon! Were you to actually read my posts you will find that my Jewish Encyclopedia post and one other specifically addressed this 2d hand quote
* The punishment of the wicked in Gehenna is twelve months. – Shabbat 33b
And OBTW are you aware of the limitations of your 2d - 3d hand quotes from other than primary sources which you have not personally verified and which cannot be verified by the average person? OTOH everything I posted I have personally quoted from the primary source.
 
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
By the way, this is the third time you have done this.

I discuss the first century meaning of the word Gehenna.

You use The Jewish Encycopedia which discusses what Gehenna meant over many centuries as somehow being an appropriate countersource.

Were you to actually read the Jewish Encyclopedia article you would find many references to the Talmud, which is the same source you claimed to quote. So if the JE is wrong then so are your so-called sources! Check and mate, amigo. You just shot yourself in the foot!

I discuss the linguistics that connect esus' metaphor about getting out after you pay the last penny with the word Gehenna.

You cut and paste a commentary that doesn't even address the linguistic connection. Your commentary cut and paste ignored the linguistic connection as dutifully as you did yourself. You did not cite a commentary that addressed the point I made.

Were you to actually read my posts instead of automatonically rejecting them you would find they did address your points. John Gill began his article with these words, "These words are not to be understood in an allegorical sense, as if "the adversary" was the justice of God, . . . " Gill was aware that some people like to claim allegory or figurative language.

I quote two ancient Jewish writings documenting what the lunar cycle phrase meant during the period when Jews measured time in lunar cycles.

You cut and paste a lengthy commentary from nineteenth century theologians who supposedly know more than the Jews of the time period I referenced?

Since you have shown no knowledge of Hebrew or Greek your opinion of renowned Hebrew scholars Keil and Delitszch is less than meaningless. You quoted the Talmud, I quoted the Talmud via the Jewish Encyclopedia and John Gill and you blew them both off.

This is strike number three. You have lost all credibility with me.

That really upsets me, NOT! You never had any credibility to lose.

Post all you want, I will not rebut. If someone else wants to accept your references, okay. That's life. It's no fun trying to discuss with someone who yanks one inappropriate reference after another.

Have a good night. I'm logging off.

Good but that will not stop me from pointing out all your fallacies, misquoted and out-of-context quotes.
 
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
And another early Jewish Rabbinic writing said:

* The judgment of the unrighteous in Gehenna shall endure twelve months, for it is written, “It will be from one moon until its moon.” – Eduyoth 2:10

The Rabbinic author above understood the reference to the lunar year, for the above author wrote at a time when the Jews still measured time based on lunar cycles. Unfortunately, modern translators are unfamiliar with the early Jewish lunar cycles and therefore do not convert the Jewish idiom into a modern English equivalent. Conversion of cultural idioms is an absolute essential of proper translation.

This is a deliberate fabrication to make a source support your assumptions/presuppositions! The only place the words, "for it is written, 'It will be from one moon until its moon.'” are associated with this quote from Eduyoth 2:10 is at your website.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.