The Eternality of Hell

[helping]

First, when reading the Bible, names can have different meanings Israel = Jacob, 12 Hebrew tribes of Israel = the chosen bloodline aka families of the 12 sons of Jacob. Jew = a member of the Jewish religion not bloodline. Paul says bloodline isn't relevant yet it's still there in the last chapter in Revelations. Christ didn't come to cancel Gods promise. He was sent because religion had become so corrupt no one could any longer find God.

A little story I heard, a 95 yr. old man was at heavens gate and God asks him why should He let him in, The man lists all the good things he done through out his life, God ask what about all of these other things ya did, the man says he didn't know that was wrong to do.
God ask, why didn't he read His Book, the man says that he was a busy man and didn't have time, God says you are actually telling Me that, 95 yrs. is not enough time to read My Book?

 

[helping]

In thought, what is Satan's agenda?? What's he want, what will he do to get it? He offered Christ the control of all the Kingdoms of the world, so who has control of them, then and now?? It states that Satan is deceiving the entire world, how, what and why. Since God made Abraham a promise, the world and religions has been trying to claim it, through wars and propaganda. for a couple thousand plus yrs. God has hid the bloodline, the ones running the world think they are it, The gov. in the US and England are blood related and they make sure it stays that way. When one misreads or misunderstands things can get messed up in a hurry.

 

[claninja]

Which centuries?

Is that a real question?

1700s, 1800s, 1900s, 2000s.....

 

[GingerBeer]

1700s, 1800s, 1900s, 2000s

That late? Only after 1700 AD? Were there no people who knew what αἰώνιος meant in the 100s, 200s, 300s and so forth?

 

[claninja]

That late? Only after 1700 AD? Were there no people who knew what αἰώνιος meant in the 100s, 200s, 300s and so forth?

Apparently

 

[GingerBeer]

Apparently

I hope you won't take this badly but I do not believe you.

 

[claninja]

I hope you won't take this badly but I do not believe you.

No offense taken. I know with a statement like the one I made, the burden of proof is on the one who makes it.

We know that there have been many schools of thought on Christianity over the last 1500-2000 years. In the first 600 years of Christianity, universalism was taught by some of those schools (not all). If universalism was taught by some of the schools, we can take a pretty good guess that they had a different idea of aionios meaning than the other schools of thought.

Origen (185-254 CE)
Saint Pantaenus (190 CE)
Gregory of Nyssa (335-390 CE)

In the 7th century there was St. Isaac the Syrian who taught universalism
16th century: Richard Copplin, Jane Lead
17th century: Jeremiah white

So on and so forth. My point here is that if people taught the idea of universalism, than not everyone agreed on the definition of aionios.

Here are some different thoughts on the word aion throught the centuries.

Hesychius (A. D. 400-600) one of the oldest lexicographers denotes aion: "life of a man, time of life"

Theodoret (300-400) states something a little different: "Aión is not any existing thing, but an interval denoting time, sometimes infinite when spoken of God, sometimes proportioned to the duration of the creation, and sometimes to the life of man"

John Damascus (750) "1, The life of every man is called aión. . . . 3, The whole duration or life of this world is called aión. 4, The life after the resurrection is called 'the aión to come.' "

But in the sixteenth century Phavorinus was compelled to notice an addition, which subsequently to the time of the famous Council of 544 had been grafted on the word. He says: "Aión, time, also life, also habit, or way of life. Aión is also the eternal and endlessAS IT SEEMS TO THE THEOLOGIAN." Theologians had succeeded in using the word in the sense of endless, and Phavorinus was forced to recognize their usage of it and his phraseology shows conclusively enough that he attributed to theologians the authorship of that use of the word. Alluding to this definition, Rev. Ezra S. Goodwin, one of the ripest scholars and profoundest critics, says,(10) "Here I strongly suspect is the true secret brought to light of the origin of the sense of eternity in aión. The theologian first thought he perceived it, or else he placed it there. The theologian keeps it there, now. And the theologian will probably retain it there longer than any one else. Hence it is that those lexicographers who assign eternity as one of the meanings of aión uniformly appeal for proofs to either theological, Hebrew, or Rabbinical Greek, or some species of Greek subsequent to the age of the Seventy, if not subsequent to the age of the Apostles, so far a I can ascertain."

The second definition by Phavorinus is extracted literally from the "Etymologicon Magnum" of the ninth or tenth century. This gives us the usage from the fourth to the sixteenth century, and shows us that, if the word meant endless at the time of Christ, it must have changed from limited duration in the classics, to unlimited duration, and then back again, at the dates above specified.


Here are just a few pasted items from a simple google search.

And no, I'm not a universalist (at least not yet), I lean more towrard annihilationism.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[GingerBeer]

No offense taken. I know with a statement like the one I made, the burden of proof is on the one who makes it.

Yes, you are right to think that the burden of proof rests with the side affirming a case. But I do not deny that a similar burden of proof lies with the side affirming everlasting punishment. That is why I quoted from the holy scriptures where the phrase "everlasting punishment" is used by Jesus. But you went on to assert that until around 1700 AD nobody really knew what the Greek word αἰώνιος meant. That is not credible because for the first three or more centuries Greek was the native tongue of many or most of the theologians and apologists who wrote books that have survived to our day. Surely they knew their own mother tongue and hence knew what αἰώνιος meant. And the majority of the early writers asserted that αἰώνιος meant everlasting. The Hebrew word that you mentioned and its translation into Greek in the LXX is more obscure than the Greek word αἰώνιος in meaning because Hebrew is far less well documented than the Greek of Jesus' day. And since the meaning of αἰώνιος is as I previously cited from The Complete Word Study Dictionary (1994 AD) you have a major problem in establishing your case. Quoting from Origin and a few other early church fathers who may have leaned towards universalism (and may not have since quotes from the same sources can be given that point to everlasting punishment for the wicked) will not prove your case. I could make my post here long and boring by quoting from many early church fathers to show that many of them taught everlasting punishment. But I will not do that unless you demand it. I am confident that you know some (or many) of the quotes anyway.

 

[claninja]

Yes, you are right to think that the burden of proof rests with the side affirming a case. But I do not deny that a similar burden of proof lies with the side affirming everlasting punishment. That is why I quoted from the holy scriptures where the phrase "everlasting punishment" is used by Jesus. But you went on to assert that until around 1700 AD nobody really knew what the Greek word αἰώνιος meant. That is not credible because for the first three or more centuries Greek was the native tongue of many or most of the theologians and apologists who wrote books that have survived to our day. Surely they knew their own mother tongue and hence knew what αἰώνιος meant. And the majority of the early writers asserted that αἰώνιος meant everlasting. The Hebrew word that you mentioned and its translation into Greek in the LXX is more obscure than the Greek word αἰώνιος in meaning because Hebrew is far less well documented than the Greek of Jesus' day. And since the meaning of αἰώνιος is as I previously cited from The Complete Word Study Dictionary (1994 AD) you have a major problem in establishing your case. Quoting from Origin and a few other early church fathers who may have leaned towards universalism (and may not have since quotes from the same sources can be given that point to everlasting punishment for the wicked) will not prove your case. I could make my post here long and boring by quoting from many early church fathers to show that many of them taught everlasting punishment. But I will not do that unless you demand it. I am confident that you know some (or many) of the quotes anyway.

Never intended to prove that aionios does not mean infinite or definite. Only that people have debated its meaning over the centuries.
Obviously the original use of the word was apparent to the authors. I'm not arguing that. The whole point of the post was that the meaning of the word has been debated. I never meant anything beyond that. So I apologize if I came off as trying to prove the absolute meaning of the word.

 

[GingerBeer]

So I apologize if I came off as trying to prove the absolute meaning of the word.

You have been a gentleman and need not apologise for anything you've written.

 

[claninja]

You have been a gentleman and need not apologise for anything you've written.

thank you for the kind words

 

[helping]

Since 0 AD Satan has had some help to stop the majority finding the way to Heaven, Even Christ states, the gate to heaven is very small, very few ever find it. So when reading New Testament, look for some evidence of misguiding statements that contradict what Christ states. One is looking for Satan's helper aka imposter aka someone who has led the Christian religion down a dead end road to become a spiteful, blood thirsty religion.

 

[Edmond Smith]

The bodies died, but what their souls.spirits? Some people like to speak as to Sodom was like everlasting fire. -But it too only burned up the bodies, the souls were not destroyed/burned into nothing.

The Word tells us this:

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Yes, they burned. At the time of death, they were before God to face his judgment.

 

[Edmond Smith]

That is a sheer assumption you have made about me, that i want to live in sin and also have God be with me, and it only proves my implicit point from earlier that traditionalists seem to think (and wrongly so) that conditionalists like me believing in literal death and destruction in Gehenna for unbelievers will give them an excuse to live in sin because, to traditionalists, the conditionalist's view of the final punishment is too "easy" or something.

And thank you for also implying that I am one of God"s enemies. That's, uh ... that's really great. I am sure God Himself is just cheering you on in your implicit condemnation of me to hell, because eternal torment is just so righteous and true.

(And please do not respond to this with trying to dress up your words as having just been "loving" or "gentle rebuke". Because, come on ....)

The truth is the truth. I don't make the rules. I just quote them as God tells them. There is no dressing up the words of the truth.

Even traditionalist as you put us. Will one day met God and be judged. Just as will you conditonalist (new word, never heard of that one). If you have sin in your life, and you have not repented of those sins and placed you trust in Christ, denying self. And you die, you will face judgment, as we all will.
And your sins will be the reason why you go to Hell. No other reason.

It is because of Love that I tell the truth of God's word. And I truly don't want to see anyone go to Hell.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

All I do is hand out the message. Whether you take it, that is your choice.

And Hell is a serious subject so there there is no gentle rebuke. The rebuke is Harsh and it's true. Repent, place your trust in Christ and live abundantly with Him for eternity. Or Don't repent and don't trust Him and live eternally In Hell. Your choice. I pray any who Is lost will do the former and turn from the latter.

Your probably not understanding who God really is. You see, he is eternal, He is loving, He is also good. For Him to be a good God would also mean he has to be just. Which why He judges those who sin against Him, in which He calls those who do so His enemy, therefore enemies of His people also. And because He is not only just He is righteous also. So He righteously judges, justly and punishes or rewards Eternally. He makes the rules, not I. And the only way to avoid eternal punishment in Hell for sin. Is to Repent of them. Place you trust in Christ. Deny self and pick up your cross and follow Him. Oh, it won't be easy, you'll mess up, because we are sinners saved by grace. And His grace abounds. Die to this world of sin and live in Christ.

 

[SarahsKnight]

Just as will you conditonalist (new word, never heard of that one).

You haven't? Well then, it refers to those like myself who reject the teaching that the soul is inherently immortal, and we believe that immortality is a gift only through Jesus Christ. Because there is nothing in the Bible that says the soul is inherently immortal and therefore lives forever to be blessed in Heaven or tortured in Hell without exception. Nothing whatsoever, in any kind of reasonable wording to make it clearly understood. In fact, there is at least one verse in Scripture that directly contradicts the traditionalist notion that the soul lives forever: Ezekiel 18:20. It says the soul that sins shall die. Since the very definition of immortality is undying, this verse is saying the exact opposite of the soul being immortal (with or without consideration of the verse's context). .... And yet mainstream Christianity continues to teach that a part of man called the soul is immortal and never truly dies regardless of his status with Christ. But do I imply that you are an enemy of God when you so adamantly believe in this sick eternal torment schlock? Far be it for me to do that. I believe you are greatly mistaken, but the Gospel is called the Good News for a reason; it has everything to do with Christ and nothing to do with the nature of Hell, so I do not dare judge you as false and command you to place your trust in Christ just because you disagree with me on this one Biblical issue, as you just did to me in the above post. So I would really appreciate it if you stopped that, honestly. It is not loving rebuke; it is a self-righteous insult.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[SarahsKnight]

Ezekiel 18 is referring to dying the first death, not the inner man dying. It is showing that the soul that sins will suffer death- and not children punished for sins of their parents or such.

As to as immortal soul - What do you think it means that Judas went to his own place?

Why did Jonah tell us that he prayed from hell and that he was heard. This mentioning of being in hell prayer is before the time he prayed from inside of the fish.

How was Jacob gathered to his people after he died -when he was still in his bed and then Joseph fell on him?

Okay, so, how does any of these questions disprove that Ezekiel 18:20 means exactly what it says?

Claiming that Ezekiel 18:20 refers to the first death only is too much an assumption, implying that the second death in Gehenna can still mean something different than what death normally means - the complete cessation of life. If Ezekiel 18:20 refers to just the first death, then there is really no point in mentioning it at all, because we have all sinned, therefore we shall all suffer the first death, believer or not, correct?

So Judas went to his own place. Okay. ... What does that say either way about whether the second death, the ultimate fate of unbelievers, is literal death or eternal conscious torment? I don't see how that is an argument for either side. You can in fact go somewhere, or be somewhere, and still be an unthinking, unfeeling corpse, rather than alive and screaming in hellfire forever. Unless I have misunderstood the point you were trying to make on this one. If so, my bad. Please clarify.

Jacob, and all others mentioned in the OT as having been "gathered to their people" when they died. Sure, that's a decent point. That is, if you were using it to indicate that there is still life and consciousness after the first death. However, while i cannot remember exactly who, weren't there a few people mentioned in the OT, mainly in Kings and Chronicles I believe, that were described as evil kings over Israel and Judah (therefore I would assume they were unbelievers and enemies in God's eyes) that were described in similar terms when their deaths were mentioned? It may not have been "gathered to his people", but I believe "rested with" or "went to his fathers" was often used to punctuate their deaths. I would contend that they all go to the same place, essentially, the grave. It will claim us all eventually, believer or unbeliever.


As for Jonas, well, yeah, it says he was in hell, but isn't it obvious he was actually in the belly of a whale? He didn't actually die upon being swallowed up by the whale, did he? Wasn't Jonah simply using hell as an expression for being in a place like an underworld (had to have been dark in that giant belly, yeah?), rather than actually having died and gone to the hell you believe that God's enemies all eventually go to to be eternally consciously punished?

In any event, the soul can't be immortal in hell if there is a verse that directly contradicts that by saying it is subject to death, whether the verse was referring to the first or second death, period. Otherwise, it really makes no sense for Ezekiel 18:20 to term it that way, especially without a single verse anywhere else in the Bible that actually says in no uncertain terms that people or their souls are or will ever be immortal in hell, alive and screaming in fire or whatever the exact nature of punishment you believe Hell to contain.

 

[Edmond Smith]

You haven't? Well then, it refers to those like myself who reject the teaching that the soul is inherently immortal, and we believe that immortality is a gift only through Jesus Christ. Because there is nothing in the Bible that says the soul is inherently immortal and therefore lives forever to be blessed in Heaven or tortured in Hell without exception. Nothing whatsoever, in any kind of reasonable wording to make it clearly understood. In fact, there is at least one verse in Scripture that directly contradicts the traditionalist notion that the soul lives forever: Ezekiel 18:20. It says the soul that sins shall die. Since the very definition of immortality is undying, this verse is saying the exact opposite of the soul being immortal (with or without consideration of the verse's context). .... And yet mainstream Christianity continues to teach that a part of man called the soul is immortal and never truly dies regardless of his status with Christ. But do I imply that you are an enemy of God when you so adamantly believe in this sick eternal torment schlock? Far be it for me to do that. I believe you are greatly mistaken, but the Gospel is called the Good News for a reason; it has everything to do with Christ and nothing to do with the nature of Hell, so I do not dare judge you as false and command you to place your trust in Christ just because you disagree with me on this one Biblical issue, as you just did to me in the above post. So I would really appreciate it if you stopped that, honestly. It is not loving rebuke; it is a self-righteous insult.

Thank you.
I've heard of the concept of conditonalist, though.

Annihilationist.

Your right immortality is a gift to those who are Born Again, Through Faith alone and Christ alone.

Your right, there is no where in the Bible that says that the soul is inherently mortal. But it does say that we, all of us, sinner and Christian. Are created in His image. And that He is the one that breathes life into us. That He has conquered Death, Hell and the grave. So we are inherently valuable to God. Even so to the point as He says in the same chapter of Ezekiel 18.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?

But then you have to answer the question on who is God judging? If you die in your sins and you just disappear or are completely annihilated from existence in your death.

Eze 18:30 ¶ Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

God judges us while we live, yes, but he will also judge us when we die. How do you answer that question?

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So, those who sin, commit murder, rape, incest, and various other terrible things...say like Pol Pot or Stalin or Hitler. They died, their existence is gone forever and have not been judged by God. By what you say, Hebrews 9:27 is a lie. And these men who died in their sins, will not pay the price of being a sinner against God and an enemy of God because of their sins. Is not God a just God?

Now, your god, may not be. But he isn't the God of the bible. And because you have created god of your own making, you have broken the first commandment "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me". This is the transgression of God's laws. Which is sin.

Because the God of the Bible is a loving, good, righteous and just God. He will reward those who are Born Again and He will punish those who sin against Him, through conscious torment for eternity.

If you sin, and you do not repent, then you are a friend to the world. If you are a friend of the world, then you are an enemy of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

Your right The Gospel is the Good news of Christ. But you leave out why He had to die. He died so that we would not have to. He met the wrath of God on the cross, as we should have. He took that wrath so that we would not have to. If you die in your sins, you will met God in all His wrath for sinning and rebelling against Him. So, by your belief, the unjust go unpunished. Those who sin against God, goes unpunished. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.


Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

If there is no righteous judgment, then this verse is a lie, according to your belief. Wrong.
God is no liar.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

This is what we are saved from. Wrath.

HOw do you anwers these scriptures?

Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

The verse above is judgment day. How does your belief answer this? In whom is God going to place His wrath, if there is no one there who have sinned against Him?

What of those who take the mark of the beast in the last days? This is the ultimate sin against God.

So, again the Word of God is a lie, according to your belief? I say not.

Revelation 14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

This describes Hell very well. Those who go are those who sin against God, by taking the mark. But according to your belief, this will not happen, it can't be real. Again, your made up god, may not do this. But the God of The Bible will, Even though he hates having to do it. It's not His will for men to go to Hell, it's His will for all men to be saved.

It's not me, your going against God's word. Again, I'm just a messenger. He inspired the Word. He is the truth of the Word. If your insulted, it's not by me. It's by Him. Because i'm just repeating Him.
Your not disagreeing with me. Your disagreeing with God. And that, you will have to take up with Him.

 

[SarahsKnight]

Your right immortality is a gift to those who are Born Again, Through Faith alone and Christ alone.

Your right, there is no where in the Bible that says that the soul is inherently mortal.

Because the God of the Bible is a loving, good, righteous and just God. He will reward those who are Born Again and He will punish those who sin against Him, through conscious torment for eternity.

Do ... you not see the problem here with this argument?

If immortality is a gift only to those who are born again through Jesus Christ, then how is it that the unbelievers are also alive to be consciously tortured all eternity?

Revelation 6:17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

The verse above is judgment day. How does your belief answer this? In whom is God going to place His wrath, if there is no one there who have sinned against Him?

I never said there was no judgment for unbelievers. You were putting words into my mouth there. ... Again. Not that what kind of punishment (or the intensity of it) the wicked will get should be such a big concern for traditionalist believers, anyway, but, yeah. A wrath can in fact end in death instead of be conscious and lasting for eternity, you know. In fact, the lake of fire IS the second death, called so even in Revelation. That sounds a lot like a wrath from God that utterly destroys both body and soul, as it was also mentioned in Matthew, perhaps through literal, physical fire.

Revelation 14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Easy. Isn't this a punishment of the specific wicked who took the mark and chose to worship the beast instead of God happening while they are still alive on Earth? Unless here the Bible decided to fast forward to the future at the final judgment just for a moment to say what will be happening to the beast worshipers in Hell, and then go back to the remaining events that are obviously happening before the Great White Throne judgment occurs - the seven angels with the seven vials of plagues, Christ's millennial reign on Earth, the final battle in which Satan is said to gather forces from all corners of the Earth to wage one last battle to completely wipe out the believers (but then fire from God is sent to simply devour the evil forces one and all) - and then go back forward to describing the final events that see the believers in the New Jerusalem with God forever, and the wicked destroyed once and for all in the lake of fire. Not really any reason to jump around on the timeline like that.

Or, how about this? Notice how at the end of that passage it says that "they have no rest day or night"? Why are temporal words like day and night being used to describe their conscious punishment here if this passage is supposed to be about them being tortured forever in Gehenna at the end, when all sense of time is ended and eternity has begun?

So, by your belief, the unjust go unpunished. Those who sin against God, goes unpunished. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Once again, no, I never said that. To be destroyed body and soul, never to have life ever again, especially if in literal fire, is in fact a punishment. I know it's not a harsh enough punishment in the eyes of you eternal torment proponents (I've heard it come directly out of your mouths before, myself), but I think I'll take a page out of your book for a moment by saying: who are you to tell God that He should do more harm than that to His enemies? Are you the judge or is God?

Is not God a just God?

Absolutely. I must believe in that. .... Which is precisely the reason why I do not believe in eternal conscious torment. If it is infinite in duration, then ultimately every last unbeliever who goes to hell to be endlessly punished and tortured is receiving the same amount of punishment for varying degrees of sin - yes, your sweet old Grandma who was kind to everyone but unfortunately never took that one essential step in believing in Jesus Christ, will suffer infinitely right alongside an unapologetic child murderer. And yet even the latter's sins are limited in number and degree of atrocity, so infinite conscious torture does not line up with God's justice which we scarcely can fathom but do get a glimpse every now and then in Scripture to see how His justice would operate, such as in Luke 12:47 and 48.

Now, your god, may not be. But he isn't the God of the bible. And because you have created god of your own making, you have broken the first commandment "Thou shalt not have any other gods before me". This is the transgression of God's laws. Which is sin.

It's not me, your going against God's word. Again, I'm just a messenger. If your insulted, it's not by me. It's by Him. Because i'm just repeating Him.
Your not disagreeing with me. Your disagreeing with God.

Yeah, uh, you keep on believing that if it makes you feel like you are in the right, buddy.