The decline of hell doctrine and church attendance

[P1LGR1M]

Since I reject the "Christian" doctrine of "hell," why should I be at all impressed with ancient Jewish belief in "hell" or something similar?

Here is one good reason, according to Paul:


Romans 3
King James Version

1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

After all, most pagans had a "hell" of some kind in mind for the wicked.

I guess we should throw out the Flood as well. Many pagan cultures had a belief in that too.

Perhaps a belief in God is questionable as well, since most peoples have a belief in God or gods, and have throughout the History of men.


God bless.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

You mean the generation Christ said this to...

Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


...?

And this...


Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


...?

So you reject Christ's warning that you should fear God because He has the power to cast people into Hell after He has killed them?




Christ's teaching is a carnal order?




And even more popular doctrines of Who Christ is.

So legitimacy of doctrine is based on popularity?

So if you had the data that supported that Everlasting Punishment in Hell is "the most popular" you would embrace that teaching?




I agree, that's why those who teach what Christ and the Apostles taught, that there will be two judgments among two peoples, lost and saved—are able to present a Biblical presentation of their Doctrine and those who teach annihilation and universal salvation rely on youtube videos and creative thinking.

This is why those who accept Christ's teaching can address the proof texts of universal salvation and annihilation and show why their proof texts are out of context.

So in this post, you call Christ's teaching carnal, and here...



...you liken it to "primal scream therapy."

You seem to be agreeing with...



...the assertion that those who teach the Doctrine of Hell are worshipping a lie from Satan.

So men should disregard Christ's teaching...


Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


...?

Men no longer have to fear God?

Because there is no Hell, it is a carnal doctrine, and a doctrine of Satan?


God bless.

Hell= Grave in the Bible

Malachi 4:3
And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I have posted numerous times on various CF threads about "hell" being uncreated, unmentioned in the Law, unmentioned in relation to the deaths of this or that person...and on and on.

You say this like no one has ever responded to your posts.

Your response above also falls into the same category of "You're wrong and I'm right! Am too! Nuh huh!"

I don't see it that way: Your proof texts have been responded to, but you have not responded to the address of your posts in full.

What exactly would you say differently in this thread that you didn't say in the others?

Most have made up their minds on the subject, unless the Spirit nudges them toward a better understanding. Deal with it.

And that's the thing about growing in Christ: most of us are going to change our views about certain doctrinal positions as we get to understand the broader teaching of Scripture.

How we "deal" with doctrines and those who present doctrines that are felt to be in error is various among the brethren, but to think we should leave people in error and think we have a Christian duty to do so is just another point of error in my view.

Paul didn't take this approach:


Acts 19:8-9
King James Version

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.


Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned G1256 with them out of the scriptures,

Act 17:17 Therefore disputed he G1256 in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Act 18:4 And he reasoned G1256 in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Act 18:19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with G1256 the Jews.


That would be a pretty good model to follow, wouldn't it?


God bless.

 

[David's Harp]

Is Hell being humorous something we find in youtube videos?

I have yet to see Christ or the Prophets or the Apostles viewing Hell as a laughing matter:

You know when I was reading the earlier jokes, I found myself getting caught up in the jesting, and I almost posted something which would have been very funny. But I decided that indeed it's not something to joke about. By doing that you're making light of the gravity of the horrifying nature of this reality. Even if you're in the UR camp, it would be a terrible thing to have to go through. I feel those in the UR camp may have a tendency to not take the seriousness of hell or the lake of fire seriously enough.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Hell= Grave in the Bible

Malachi 4:3
And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

Sorry, no.

While the Old Testament has reference to the grave, pit, and Hell, the context has to determine what is in view.

In view is the Return of Christ, and as mentioned in the post you ignored to offer up yet another proof text is that Christ taught about Hell and He did not make it to mean simply the grave or physical death itself:


Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


If the Lord had meant to lay again the foundational principles of death He would have used the word Hades, and that would have been the equivalent to the limited understanding men had from the revelation provided in the Hebrew Scriptures.

That the enemies of Christ will be His footstool is no more commentary on the Everlasting Punishment He taught than your proof text.

We must distinguish between physical death when it is spoken of in Scripture and Everlasting Death, which is everlasting separation from God.

Men are dead when they are born because they are born separated from God. The only means of Eternal Life (contrasted with everlasting life, which is what Adam would have had if he had remained in the Garden with access to the Tree of Life) is by eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, or in other words—believing in Jesus Christ:

John 6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.


Christ's teaching still denies yours: men are to fear God because He can cast into Hell after He has killed.

And destroy both soul and body in Hell.

The destruction is not a cessation of existence, but a state of separation from God that will be everlasting.

Do you also try to teach people they can be in relationship with God through the Covenant of Law? Instead of the teaching of the New Testament that shows men can only be in relationship with God through the New Covenant?

That is what you are doing with proof texts that try to make the statement of the Old Testament negate the teaching of the New.

We know far more about the Resurrection of the dead because of the New Testament, and in no way does Christ's teaching get cancelled out:


John 5:29
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


Two peoples, lost and saved.

Two resurrections, unto life—and unto damnation.

When Christ returns there will certainly be a physical fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy and teaching, but that doesn't mean we ignore the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, or even the Prophets.

And we certainly do not call Christ's teaching a doctrine of Satan.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

However, fear does not result in confidence on the day of judgment, also noted that those who fear are not matured in love.

I have every confidence that I will not stand at the Great White Throne judgment, because I have been immersed into Christ and partake of the Eternal Life He came to bestow on those who would believe in Him.

Every confidence.

As far as my judgment concerning my works, I have every confidence that every misdeed and misstep I uttered and took will be judged and I will be rewarded, for good or bad, based on those words and deeds.

But it isn't a judgment that will determine my eternal destiny. That has already been determined in the Person of Christ. His righteousness, not mine, has been credited to my account, and I have received remission of sins forever for my sins.

Because He died in my stead.

One will either receive life through faith in Christ in this life or one will stand before God and be judged at the Great White Throne. Hell, the Lake of Fire is never said to end, and the torment of those who go in is decidedly stated to be everlasting.

But that confidence, that hope of glory is not for those who have no fear of God. I didn't say it, Jesus Christ and the Apostles said it.

To lull men into a false confidence of Eternal Redemption without believing in Christ and to teach they can receive forgiveness despite blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is by far one of the most hateful things I feel men can do to other men.

There is no love in preaching a false doctrine that will possibly guarantee men will go into a Christless Eternity.

Only those who know Christ have no reason not to fear God and Hell. Those who know not God and obey not the Gospel have every reason to, and that is precisely why Christ taught men to fear God and Hell. That is why the Apostles also taught men to fear Hell.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

You know when I was reading the earlier jokes, I found myself getting caught up in the jesting, and I almost posted something which would have been very funny. But I decided that indeed it's not something to joke about. By doing that you're making light of the gravity of the horrifying nature of this reality. Even if you're in the UR camp, it would be a terrible thing to have to go through. I feel those in the UR camp may have a tendency to not take the seriousness of hell or the lake of fire seriously enough.

My sense of humor gets me into trouble more often than not, but I can honestly say that the idea of anyone going into the everlasting torment of Hell is probably the unfunniest thing there is.


God bless.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

And...?

Truly those who have been born of God have no fear of condemnation.

How is that relevant to denying the teaching of Christ that men are to fear God Who can cast into Hell?

How is Hell denied when it is taught by Christ?

Let's back up a little from your proof text:


Romans 8:7-9
King James Version

7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.


Those not eternally indwelt by God do not belong to God.

So how exactly is this verse relevant to your teaching?

It isn't, it is, like all universal salvation proof texts—used out of context.





Does this cancel out Christ's warning?

You have called Christ's teaching a "carnal order..."





...?

Being afraid of going to Hell is not a carnal order in any generation, and it is not based on emotions, it is founded on Christ's Own Word:


Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


So who are people supposed to listen to? Someone who says a fear of going to Hell is a carnal order, or Christ?

Does Christ state clearly that people are to fear God Who has the power to cast into Hell after He has killed?


God bless.

This illustrates that teachings that speak from a spirit of fear, trying to keep people in a state of psychological fear, are lacking spiritual maturity.

When faith works through love, this is the correct, non-carnal way of operating in the New Covenant.

 

[RDKirk]

Dante, Milton and Baxter are not "tangible evidence," as their accounts of "hell" are clearly fiction. The Bible is silent on the subject except for bad translation. There is zero evidence for "hell."

There is certainly sufficient evidence in scripture of "hell." There just isn't much information about what the environmental conditions of hell.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Who, or what—forced people to attend fellowship?

And what does a forsaking of the assembling of the brethren suggest?

This was a generation where the church forsook the assembly, those forsaken did not know they were subconsciously coerced until being forced to stay away. As time passed, they realized, they did not like the person that they became in contact with church.

They did not forsake the church, the church forsook them.

Is Hell being humorous something we find in youtube videos?

I have yet to see Christ or the Prophets or the Apostles viewing Hell as a laughing matter:


I just don't see any humor in men being cast into Hell.

What is it that you base Hell being funny on?


God bless.

May God be true and every man a liar, you are but a man, and a liar. Speaking with such certainty and no spiritual authority to back it up, there are many people like this who base their rightness on the amount of decibels their voice can carry. But this is not Sparta, pilgrim, this is the kingdom of God. Blessed be the peacemakers.

There is:
Satan wasn't interested in teaching men to fear God and Hell, but to convince men he can offer something better.


God bless.

Seem mighty sure what Satan was or wasn't interested in there, but you're a human, so whaddaya know?

I do know that God despises those who cause discord among the brethren the most among the list of other things God hates in the proverbs.

Impersonating christians and telling a story that so close to the truth that people buy it, sounds like something the father of lies might try. If this was done slowly over the centuries, with minor variations here and there - then the current plight of Christendom (divided and fallen) might just make sense.

I have every confidence that I will not stand at the Great White Throne judgment, because I have been immersed into Christ and partake of the Eternal Life He came to bestow on those who would believe in Him.

Every confidence.

As far as my judgment concerning my works, I have every confidence that every misdeed and misstep I uttered and took will be judged and I will be rewarded, for good or bad, based on those words and deeds.

But it isn't a judgment that will determine my eternal destiny. That has already been determined in the Person of Christ. His righteousness, not mine, has been credited to my account, and I have received remission of sins forever for my sins.

Because He died in my stead.

One will either receive life through faith in Christ in this life or one will stand before God and be judged at the Great White Throne. Hell, the Lake of Fire is never said to end, and the torment of those who go in is decidedly stated to be everlasting.

But that confidence, that hope of glory is not for those who have no fear of God. I didn't say it, Jesus Christ and the Apostles said it.

To lull men into a false confidence of Eternal Redemption without believing in Christ and to teach they can receive forgiveness despite blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is by far one of the most hateful things I feel men can do to other men.

There is no love in preaching a false doctrine that will possibly guarantee men will go into a Christless Eternity.

Only those who know Christ have no reason not to fear God and Hell. Those who know not God and obey not the Gospel have every reason to, and that is precisely why Christ taught men to fear God and Hell. That is why the Apostles also taught men to fear Hell.


God bless.

The scripture says that we have boldness on the day of judgment because love is made mature or perfect in us, no other reason is given.

It is also written:

My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 1 Corinthians 4:4

So it is not wise to have absolute confidence for any other reason than love being made perfect in you, a love without fear.

Since a clear conscience does not make you innocent, such confidence is false.

 

[Saint Steven]

And only one of these positions are correct.

I suppose that depends on who you ask.

Saint Steven said: ↑
FYI
There are three biblical positions on the final judgment.
1) Damnationism
2) Annihilationism
3) Ultimate Redemption (UR) Christian Universalism

 

[Lazarus Short]

Would you mind presenting these bad translations?

God bless.

The quick answer is any Bible containing the word "hell."

"Hell" and "infernum" were perfectly good words at one time, but they got loaded with theology. "Hell" meant hidden and covered...therefore unknown. "Infernum" meant under, as in, under the grass...and nothing like our modern word "inferno."

I took a good look at how the Hebrew word "sheol" was translated in the KJV. About half the time, it was rendered as "grave" or "pit." About half the time it got turned into "hell." Looking closer, I noticed that if the context of a verse with "sheol" was tied to the real world, it was usually "grave/pit." If context did not tie the verse to the real world, "hell" was usually used. Now why not just transliterate "sheol" rather than use a word I traced back to Norse paganism? There is no reason, unless you are trying to set up a doctrine the text does not support.

It was the same with "hades," the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "sheol." Well, it was not quite equivalent, as it came from a pagan culture, carried pagan connotations, and was even the name of the "god" who the pagans thought ruled it.

So, the not-so-quick answer is most Bibles in which theology guided the translation. Bias is almost inevitable, but some versions are more accurate than others and more free of bias. Study is required, not just choosing the most popular version or one recommended by a stranger in a www forum. That is why I will not make a recommendation here.

 

[Saint Steven]

And only one of these positions are correct.

Here is Christ's statement:

Matthew 25
King James Version

11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.


12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.


29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.



31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:


46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


No commentary needed. Three teachings all saying the same thing: There is a different judgment for those known of Christ and those not known. A different judgment for the Sheep (believers) and Goats (unbelievers)—one of everlasting fire and punishment, and one of Eternal Life.

What does Matthew twenty-five say is the reason for salvation? And do you agree?

Matthew 25:34-36 NIV
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

 

[Saint Steven]

No commentary needed. Three teachings all saying the same thing: There is a different judgment for those known of Christ and those not known. A different judgment for the Sheep (believers) and Goats (unbelievers)—one of everlasting fire and punishment, and one of Eternal Life.

I agree about different "judgments". But that's not the best word for what will happen. Speaking of wrong words...

Aionios mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46.

All these verses below use the same NT Greek word, "aionios", the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46. See bold below. This shows that "aionios" cannot mean eternal or everlasting.

Matthew 13:22
The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful.

Romans 12:2
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Ephesians 2:2
in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Galatians 1:4-5 KJV
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Galatians 1:4-5 KJV
Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Compare: Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; Luke 20:35; Ephesians 1:21

Luke 18:29-30
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or sisters or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 will fail to receive many times as much in this age, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kfKQJfT0C8&t=770s

 

[Lazarus Short]

You say this like no one has ever responded to your posts.




I don't see it that way: Your proof texts have been responded to, but you have not responded to the address of your posts in full.

What exactly would you say differently in this thread that you didn't say in the others?




And that's the thing about growing in Christ: most of us are going to change our views about certain doctrinal positions as we get to understand the broader teaching of Scripture.

How we "deal" with doctrines and those who present doctrines that are felt to be in error is various among the brethren, but to think we should leave people in error and think we have a Christian duty to do so is just another point of error in my view.

Paul didn't take this approach:


Acts 19:8-9
King James Version

8 And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God.

9 But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.


Act 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned G1256 with them out of the scriptures,

Act 17:17 Therefore disputed he G1256 in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him.

Act 18:4 And he reasoned G1256 in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Act 18:19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with G1256 the Jews.


That would be a pretty good model to follow, wouldn't it?


God bless.

I appreciate your thoughtful posts, I really do. BUT, the format here on a www discussion forum, is a bit limiting. It is not easy posting a comprehensive answer to critics. I have posted several times my "Condensation of Conclusions" with many Scripture references, but even that is not generally well received by non-UR believers. My notes on my 2+ year read-thru of the KJV are too ponderous to post here, as the book the notes turned into runs over 200 pages. Yes, to confirm one of the three afterlife theories, I used a KJV to avoid accusations of bias, but a prominent poster accused me anyway - I think just yesterday.

So you know where I am coming from, I was raised a Southern Baptist, so I got hellfire & brimstone. Later, I was an atheist for several years. Later, I was a member of the SDA church, which stressed annihilation. Later, I almost stumbled over UR, and rejected it a time or two, until I did that read-thru of the KJV. Anybody else here put that much time into resolving a single doctrinal issue? My book is really a tightly-focused commentary, and I am not shaken by any argument presented here. Some know now, others will know later. As the Scriptures say, each man in his own order.

 

[Der Alte]

The quick answer is any Bible containing the word "hell."
"Hell" and "infernum" were perfectly good words at one time, but they got loaded with theology. "Hell" meant hidden and covered...therefore unknown. "Infernum" meant under, as in, under the grass...and nothing like our modern word "inferno."
I took a good look at how the Hebrew word "sheol" was translated in the KJV. About half the time, it was rendered as "grave" or "pit." About half the time it got turned into "hell." Looking closer, I noticed that if the context of a verse with "sheol" was tied to the real world, it was usually "grave/pit." If context did not tie the verse to the real world, "hell" was usually used. Now why not just transliterate "sheol" rather than use a word I traced back to Norse paganism? There is no reason, unless you are trying to set up a doctrine the text does not support.
It was the same with "hades," the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "sheol." Well, it was not quite equivalent, as it came from a pagan culture, carried pagan connotations, and was even the name of the "god" who the pagans thought ruled it.
So, the not-so-quick answer is most Bibles in which theology guided the translation. Bias is almost inevitable, but some versions are more accurate than others and more free of bias. Study is required, not just choosing the most popular version or one recommended by a stranger in a www forum. That is why I will not make a recommendation here.

To begin with you started out with preconceptions and you guided your "study" so that you ended up supporting what you had already decided. And guess what you confirmed you own assumptions/presuppositions. Who would have thunk it?
What should you have done? If one wants to research the meaning of words in another language would it not be advisable to actually read a lexicon on that language? There is an older edition of the major Hebrew lexicon used by Christian colleges and universities available free online.
A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament, with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic : Brown, Francis, 1849-1916 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Also since we are talking about Hebrew words in the O.T. would it not be advisable to read Jewish sources instead of crow barring one's own assumptions/presuppositions into the text? I would suggest the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud, and the Encyclopedia Judaica all available online FREE!

 

[Lazarus Short]

There is certainly sufficient evidence in scripture of "hell." There just isn't much information about what the environmental conditions of hell.

I respectfully disagree. As I sometimes remind folks here, "...sufficient evidence in scripture..." is misleading. The Scriptures are not carved in stone, they are not monolithic, they are not just a single version we can call "The Scriptures," or "The Bible." They are paper and ink in a great number of versions/translations. If you fail to mention the version you are quoting from, you are not being entirely honest.

Now for "hell," we know it is in the KJV. The 1611 KJV has both "hell" and "hel." Back a few centuries, "Beowulf" has "hell," "hel" and "helle." The setting of "Beowulf" is Denmark/Danmark, so I delved into Norse mythology. There, I quickly found the goddess/ogress Hel, who the pagans thought to rule over her afterlife realm of "Helheim" or "House of Hel." It was not a good place like Valhalla, and you went there if you did not die in battle. Now you know where "hell" comes from.

 

[Der Alte]

Hell= Grave in the Bible
Malachi 4:3
And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts.

Wrong!
My ¢¢ Below are quotes from three Jewish sources; the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1972 Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Which to date have not been, and I am convinced cannot be, refuted.
= = = = =
…..It is very enticing to claim that the Christian concept of "Hell" was somehow derived from Dante's 14th century writing “Inferno,” or some later writing. But according to these three sources, at least 16 centuries before Dante even scribbled one line, among the יהודים/Yehudim/ιουδαιων/Youdaion/Jews in Israel, before and during the time of Jesus, there was a significant belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom. Sheol and gehinnom are written Hades and Gehenna, respectively, in both the 225 BC LXX and the NT. As can be seen by the citations in this post The Jews later called both Sheol/Hades, and Ge Hinnom/Gehenna, “Hell.
…..There were different factions within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. These differing beliefs do not disprove anything in this post.

[1]1925 Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the sons of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);[“Soon” in this paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA]​

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 toIsa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b)[Talmud].
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
[2]1972 Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
…..During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; ). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
Link:
Gehinnom
http://www.jevzajcg.me/enciklopedia/Encyclopaedia Judaica, v. 07 (Fey-Gor).pdf
= = = = = = = = = =
[3]Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [i.e. followers of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]:
"And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written[Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more.
Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

When Jesus taught e.g.,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell [Γέεννα/gehenna] where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, 3 times Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6 [A fate worse than death. DA]
• “Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. …And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24 [A fate worse than death]
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12​

[A fate worse than death. DA]
…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell, c.f. Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and Talmud, supra.
In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death, without mercy, is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. [A fate worse than death. DA] ​

…..“how much sorer punishment,””Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord,””It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” these deprecations certainly do not sound like everyone will be saved, no matter what.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say “eternal death,” in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment/aionios kolasis.”
….The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, see Acts of the Apostles 23:8. They knew that everybody died; rich, poor; young, old; good, bad; men, women; children, infants; sick, healthy, and knew that it was permanent and often it did not involve punishment.
When Jesus taught, e.g., “eternal punishment” the Sadducees would not have understood it as simply death, it very likely would have meant something worse to them.
…..Re: Matt 25:46 concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,

“Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.” Justin Martyr [A.D. 110-165.] Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 4​

…..Jesus attended Temple and synagogues for about 25 years +/-. He undoubtedly knew what the Jews believed about the fate of the unrighteous. He opposed the Jewish leaders many times, If the Jewish teaching on hell was wrong, why wouldn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, e.g.

"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"[/i] ([Judith xvi:17]Judith xvi. 17).
Link: Judith, CHAPTER 16​

 

[Lazarus Short]

To begin with you started out with preconceptions and you guided your "study" so that you ended up supporting what you had already decided. And guess what you confirmed you own assumptions/presuppositions. Who would have thunk it?
What should you have done? If one wants to research the meaning of words in another language would it not be advisable to actually read a lexicon on that language? There is an older edition of the major Hebrew lexicon used by Christian colleges and universities available free online.
A Hebrew and English lexicon of the Old Testament, with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic : Brown, Francis, 1849-1916 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Also since we are talking about Hebrew words in the O.T. would it not be advisable to read Jewish sources instead of crow barring one's own assumptions/presuppositions into the text? I would suggest the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Talmud, and the Encyclopedia Judaica all available online FREE!

You misrepresent me AGAIN. I have explained before and again today (post #76 above) that I spent over two years in the KJV to DECIDE which afterlife theory was correct. Now "...you started out with preconceptions and you guided your "study" so that you ended up supporting what you had already decided." is something you cannot possibly know, but you plow ahead as if your opinion was carved in stone.

I think YOU are the one with preconceptions.

Oh, and as ever, I reject those biased Jewish sources...well, the Jewish Encyclopedia is sometimes useful.

You want to steer me toward what I'm sure you consider to be good scholarship, but I have seen enough of both scientific and scholarly literature to know that both are divided into bickering camps. The science is NOT settled, and neither is the scholarship. Both are populated by petty, argumentative humans, and what else would anyone expect?