Re-Thinking Hell

[Der Alte]

So far all you've shown is that only Enoch and Judith support your claim, and that's pretty weak evidence.

How many does it take? Enoch and Judith were cited by the Jewish scholars as authoritative. Read my long "wall of text" again check the blue highlights which indicate the OT scripture cited in the article.
Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God[/color] (Sotah 22a);[/i][“Soon” in this paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA][/indent]
Note: This is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA
…..This refutes the false narrative that the eleven [11] times Jesus mentioned “Gehenna” He was referring to the valley of GeHinnom/Gehenna where trash and bodies were supposedly always burning.

”(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai [30 BC-90 AD] wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell(B.M. 83b).
“But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab [Talmud]. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
“… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b).[Talmud] “When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; [Talmud] comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch [x. 6, xci. 9, etal] also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b)[Talmud].

And once again your biased opinion is not relevant.​

 

[ozso]

How many does it take? Enoch and Judith were cited by the Jewish scholars as authoritative.

They're motioned in hodgepodge of references along with Luke 16:19-31. So by your reasoning "Jewish scholars" are citing the New Testament and the words of Jesus as authoritative.
GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Der Alte]

They're motioned in hodgepodge of references along with Luke 16:19-31. So by your reasoning "Jewish scholars" are citing the New Testament and the words of Jesus as authoritative.
GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Sadly mistaken! Do you know what the abbreviation "comp." means? "compare."

The Book of Enoch (xxvii. 3, xlviii. 9, lxii. 12) paraphrases this thought by saying that the pious rejoice in the pains of hell suffered by the sinners. Abraham takes the damned to his bosom ('Er. 19a; comp. Luke xvi. 19-31).​

Luke 16:19-31 is the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus when he died was carried to "Abraham' bosom."

 

[ozso]

Sadly mistaken! Do you know what the abbreviation "comp." means? "compare."

The Book of Enoch (xxvii. 3, xlviii. 9, lxii. 12) paraphrases this thought by saying that the pious rejoice in the pains of hell suffered by the sinners. Abraham takes the damned to his bosom ('Er. 19a; comp. Luke xvi. 19-31).​

Luke 16:19-31 is the story of Lazarus and the rich man. Lazarus when he died was carried to "Abraham' bosom."

That still amounts to Luke being "cited by the Jewish scholars as authoritative" according to what you said.

 

[Der Alte]

They're motioned in hodgepodge of references along with Luke 16:19-31. So by your reasoning "Jewish scholars" are citing the New Testament and the words of Jesus as authoritative.

GEHENNA - JewishEncyclopedia.com

WRONG! The modern scholar who compiled/wrote this article is comparing, that is what "comp." mean, Luke to a reference in the book of Enoch. Entirely possible.

 

[ozso]

WRONG! The modern scholar who compiled/wrote this article is comparing, that is what "comp." mean, Luke to a reference in the book of Enoch. Entirely possible.

That still amounts to Luke being "cited by the Jewish scholars as authoritative" according to what you said.

 

[Der Alte]

That still amounts to Luke being "cited by the Jewish scholars as authoritative".

You got a problem with that? Although Jewish scholars are largely opposed to the N.T. it is possible one might find something acceptable in the NT.

 

[ozso]

You got a problem with that? Although Jewish scholars are largely opposed to the N.T. it is possible one might find something acceptable in the NT.

Let's back up a little. You said "WRONG! The modern scholar who compiled/wrote this article". You also said that what modern Jewish scholars have to say is irrelevant. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Also If the modern Jewish scholar listing Enoch and Judith makes them authoritative in Judaism, that would make Luke authoritative in Judaism.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I'm not an apologist for universalism. I'm familiar with it in general, but I've never rolled up my sleeves and dove in. As for the scripture you provided, anyone who holds to doctrine A can apply it to someone who holds to doctrine B if they're so inclined. Calvinist against Arminian and so on.

I hope you don't mind me saying, it is this mindset that will keep you from being able to actually teach anything to anyone because you have no set standard

While it may be true, "... anyone who holds to doctrine A can apply it to someone who holds to doctrine B if they're so inclined," that doesn't make it right, nor does it deny that there are absolutes given us in Scripture which serve as the basis for our doctrine.

I am quite confident that doctrine A and B of the Calvinist and Arminian can be shown to be error where it is in fact in error. Because the idea that two opposing views can be correct on essential doctrines is absurd.

And by the way, you do come across as an apologist for universalism. Not only that, what you say above conflicts with what you said earlier:

I haven't read all the posts in this thread. But I'm not sure if I've ever seen anyone on CF refute universalism, who seemed to actually understand the doctrine. So they end up making incorrect and untrue statements about it. It doesn't make any sense to me to argue against a doctrine with an insufficient understanding of it.

You claim to be able to identify those who are "making incorrect and untrue statements about it," while at the same time saying "you haven't rolled up your sleeves" and are not an apologist.

Then—it doesn't make any sense to argue against a doctrine without sufficient understanding?

You seem to be trying to say two different things and claiming neutrality your posts do not present.

God bless.

 

[ozso]

I hope you don't mind me saying, it is this mindset that will keep you from being able to actually teach anything to anyone because you have no set standard

While it may be true, "... anyone who holds to doctrine A can apply it to someone who holds to doctrine B if they're so inclined," that doesn't make it right, nor does it deny that there are absolutes given us in Scripture which serve as the basis for our doctrine.

I am quite confident that doctrine A and B of the Calvinist and Arminian can be shown to be error where it is in fact in error. Because the idea that two opposing views can be correct on essential doctrines is absurd.

And by the way, you do come across as an apologist for universalism. Not only that, what you say above conflicts with what you said earlier:



You claim to be able to identify those who are "making incorrect and untrue statements about it," while at the same time saying "you haven't rolled up your sleeves" and are not an apologist.

Then—it doesn't make any sense to argue against a doctrine without sufficient understanding?

You seem to be trying to say two different things and claiming neutrality your posts do not present.

God bless.

Let me put it another way. I don't consider myself an expert because I haven't put nearly as much effort into studying it as others on CF. I haven't read books on universalism for instance. Whereas others here have, and I think one or two have even written their own book(s) on the subject. I know more about how the doctrine works in general than those who know next to nothing and make incorrect statements about it. When it comes to basic misunderstandings, I'll try to set the record straight. Again I think if someone is going to take a stance against something, they should at least have a good basic understanding of it. So I try to provide that at times.

 

[P1LGR1M]

An easy cope out. If someone views scripture differently automatically they are of the devil. Try again.

The cop-out is not addressing the points and Scripture, and proceeding with your own teaching as if your error had not been addressed.

But it is no surprise.

1.The entity who enjoys limiting God is Satan himself.

Satan isn't alone.

2.Universalism does not limit God in anyway.

Universalism limits God as inconsistent. But thankfully the universalist shows that it is they who are inconsistent, because, as I have shown in the proof-texting you provided—what you are saying doesn't even align with what the verses you quote state.

You take passages that refer to those who belong to Christ and apply them to everyone. Not something any serious Bible Student is going to overlook, but unfortunately—there's a lot of collateral damage among those who are seeking after God.

3.Your complaint that God will only save the righteous is refuted by Christ Himself.

This is a false charge, and ridiculous: it is the unrighteous God saves.

Remember, there are none righteous?

I have given my "complaints" in addressing your doctrine and what I view to be a false gospel, why won't you address those posts?

You make the Gospel of Jesus Christ obsolete with the false gospel everyone is going to be saved in the end.

So since you ignore what has already been addressed, how about explaining the parting words of the Lord Jesus Christ:


Revelation 22:19
King James Version

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


And by the way, I hope you don't take this as an attack on your person. I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs, and while I do disagree strongly with your doctrine, I do not question the reality of another person's salvation based on their doctrine (at least publicly). These posts are not given in hostility or without a sincere concern and desire to help.

So, what exactly does the Lord mean when He states "God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book?"


God bless.

 

[ozso]

And by the way, I hope you don't take this as an attack on your person. I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs, and while I do disagree strongly with your doctrine, I do not question the reality of another person's salvation based on their doctrine (at least publicly). These posts are not given in hostility or without a sincere concern and desire to help.

Agreeing to the Nicene Creed is a requirement for posting in this the Christians only theology section, so there's no reason to question anyone's salvation in this thread. And implying someone here isn't saved, even though scripture, is forbidden.

So, what exactly does the Lord mean when He states "God will take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the Holy City, and from the things which are written in this book?

It means they are going to hell, even according to universalism. And if you understand universalism doctrine, then you already know that.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Let me put it another way. I don't consider myself an expert because I haven't put nearly as much effort into studying it as others on CF. I haven't read books on universalism for instance. Whereas others here have, and I think one or two have even written their own book(s) on the subject. I know more about how the doctrine works in general than those who know next to nothing and make incorrect statements about it. When it comes to basic misunderstandings, I'll try to set the record straight. Again I think if someone is going to take a stance against something, they should at least have a good basic understanding of it. So I try to provide that at times.

One currency expert was asked if he spent a lot of time studying counterfeit money. He said, "No, I study the genuine article. That is how I can tell what is counterfeit."

Books about the Bible indoctrinate. Books of the Bible illuminate.

So, in your taking a stance in favor for Universal salvation you yourself become a teacher of that doctrine. You are an apologist for the view, and you have just publicly reversed your position.

There is no "good, basic understanding" of universal salvation, because it conflicts with the basic principle of Eternal Judgment taught by Scripture and Christ Himself.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Agreeing to the Nicene Creed is a requirement for posting in this the Christians only theology section, so there's no reason to question anyone's salvation in this thread. And implying someone here isn't saved, even though scripture, is forbidden.

It's small wonder you are all over the map. How exactly do you get a questioning of anyone's salvation out of...

P1LGR1M said: ↑

And by the way, I hope you don't take this as an attack on your person. I am sure you are sincere in your beliefs, and while I do disagree strongly with your doctrine, I do not question the reality of another person's salvation based on their doctrine (at least publicly). These posts are not given in hostility or without a sincere concern and desire to help.

It is a statement saying the exact opposite.

And if you feel I have somehow violated the Nicene Creed—please elaborate.

It means they are going to hell, even according to universalism. And if you understand universalism doctrine, then you already know that.

Funny, but I don't see the Lord saying "You are going to Hell" in His statement.

I see...


Revelation 22:19
King James Version

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Again, what does the Lord mean?


God bless.

 

[ozso]

I simply want you to tell me what it means.

Not sure how many ways I can say that.

What does...

Revelation 22:19
King James Version

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

...mean.

In post 112 you say it means one goes to hell, but I don't see that in the statement. No mention of hell at all.

So I'll simplify the question: what does it mean to have one's part taken out of the book of life?

Those who are not in the book of life go into the lake of fire...


Revelation 20:15
King James Version

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


...but what does that mean?

Have to get going, but again I have enjoyed it.

Hope everyone has a blessed day:


God bless.

I just answered that in post #112. So now it's time for you to explain what you mean by continually posting Revelation 22:19. Are you saying that it applies to universalists?

 

[P1LGR1M]

I just answered that in post #112. So now it's time for you to explain what you mean by continually posting Revelation 22:19. Are you saying that it applies to universalists?

I simply want you to tell me what it means.

Not sure how many ways I can say that.

What does...

Revelation 22:19
King James Version

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

...mean.

In post 112 you say it means one goes to hell, but I don't see that in the statement. No mention of hell at all.

So I'll simplify the question: what does it mean to have one's part taken out of the book of life?

Those who are not in the book of life go into the lake of fire...


Revelation 20:15
King James Version

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


...but what does that mean?

Have to get going, but again I have enjoyed it.

Hope everyone has a blessed day:


God bless.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Agreeing to the Nicene Creed is a requirement for posting in this the Christians only theology section, so there's no reason to question anyone's salvation in this thread. And implying someone here isn't saved, even though scripture, is forbidden.



It means they are going to hell, even according to universalism. And if you understand universalism doctrine, then you already know that.

"...even according to universalism." is not quite accurate. I can't speak for other universalists, but I question how anyone is going to a fictitious place. Would it be Helheim, Dante's Hell, Milton's Hell or Mary K Baxter's Hell? They are not all the same.

 

[ozso]

I simply want you to tell me what it means.

Not sure how many ways I can say that.

What does...

Revelation 22:19
King James Version

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

...mean.

In post 112 you say it means one goes to hell, but I don't see that in the statement. No mention of hell at all.

So I'll simplify the question: what does it mean to have one's part taken out of the book of life?

Those who are not in the book of life go into the lake of fire...


Revelation 20:15
King James Version

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


...but what does that mean?

Have to get going, but again I have enjoyed it.

Hope everyone has a blessed day:


God bless.

I already told you what I think it means. Twice. Since I'm wrong, instead of asking me the same question over and over again, please explain what it really means. And tell me what you're getting at with it please.

 

[ozso]

"...even according to universalism." is not quite accurate. I can't speak for other universalists, but I question how anyone is going to a fictitious place. Would it be Helheim, Dante's Hell, Milton's Hell or Mary K Baxter's Hell? They are not all the same.

Hadés ᾅδῃ (adē) per Luke 16:23.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Hadés ᾅδῃ (adē) per Luke 16:23.

Hades? The place or the pagan Greek "god"? Would the real God, Who told us not to even mention the names of pagan "gods" [Joshua 23:7] then go on to do so Himself? I doubt Jesus, here, was speaking Greek, or used the term "hades."