There is no hell. (2)

[GuardianShua]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "There is no hell."

 

[Der Alte]

[ . . . ]My initial comments (as I recall, anyway) were geared towards the definition of the words that were presented from a Jewish encyclopedia. And they did not cover the full scope of scholarship on the subject, even though the person posting the entry seemed to want to insist that it did.... being unwilling, also, to consider how some of the things that he was being told about the use of the words and their meanings were also contained within the very text he, himself, posted - though he was arguing against such uses.[ . . . ]

Is it your usual practice to make false accusations against other members? If you think any of this is true, address it in the respective post, or we must assume that it is a total fabrication!

 

[angelmom01]

Is it your usual practice to make false accusations against other members? If you think any of this is true, address it in the respective post, or we must assume that it is a total fabrication!

I did. In post 971. And since you replied to it, you should already be aware of it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I did. In post 971. And since you replied to it, you should already be aware of it.

Hi am......don't know if you are aware of this, but it you click on a post #, you can then post a link directly to that post like this.....just saves time hunting it up ehehe:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7323024-4/#post53771232

 

[Der Alte]

I did. In post 971. And since you replied to it, you should already be aware of it.

I just did check that post.

My initial comments (as I recall, anyway) were geared towards the definition of the words that were presented from a Jewish encyclopedia.

A blatantly false statement!

And they did not cover the full scope of scholarship on the subject, even though the person posting the entry seemed to want to insist that it did....

Another blatantly false statement!

being unwilling, also, to consider how some of the things that he was being told about the use of the words and their meanings were also contained within the very text he, himself, posted - though he was arguing against such uses.

And a third blatantly false statement!

 

[angelmom01]

Hi am......don't know if you are aware of this, but it you click on a post #, you can then post a link directly to that post like this.....just saves time hunting it up ehehe:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7323024-4/#post53771232

Yes, I had already changed the page, though, and didn't want to go back and find it again. Figured the post number would be sufficient if he actually wanted to go back and look (though now it looks like some of the post numbers have changed, as my initial post when I looked yesterday was 900 and today it is 899).

 

[angelmom01]

I just did check that post.

Good. Then you can see where I clearly addressed the definition of kolasis that you posted, especially the portions of which reflected the same or similar meaning to that which others were trying to tell you was their understanding of the meaning of the word - in the sense of corrective or remedial punishment, rather than punitive. Something that you kept insisting was not true and ignored in the very definition that you yourself posted.

A blatantly false statement!

I said "as I recall" and I was not counting the brief "osas" exchange, nor my second post to you re the encyclopedia entry regarding universal salvation (that I had already pointed out was 'all' I had initially pointed out to you). So, other than that, my very next post to you was post 971 in which I very clearly addressed the definition of kolasis that you posted - particularly those portions of which reflected a meaning the same or similar to what others were claiming and you were refusing to acknowledge.

Another blatantly false statement!

Are you claiming that the definition that you posted DOES cover the full scope of scholarship available on the word or that you were not "SEEMING" to insist that it did by repeatedly posting it and refusing to listen to any other input or understanding?

And a third blatantly false statement!

I refer you back to post #971 and the conversation and accusations that followed.

So if you are done with your false accusations, perhaps we should just end this conversation, as I am (quite frankly) tried of dealing with you.

 

[heavensprings]

Why should I not quote historical evidence which shows how the Jews interpreted and put into practice the OT, before, during and beyond the time of Jesus, to counter accusations that the teaching there was a place of eternal, unending, punishment for the unrighteous, was copied from pagan religions by early Christians?

I was simply trying to point out to you that not only did Christians copy endless torment from pagan religions... so did the Jews after being taken into captivity to Babylon. Both sets, Jews and then Christians have continually allowed paganism into their teachings.

​

Do you only learn about God through Greek grammar and lexicon's?
​

Do you only have discussions by trying to insult people?

I apologize.

 

[Der Alte]

I was simply trying to point out to you that not only did Christians copy endless torment from pagan religions... so did the Jews after being taken into captivity to Babylon. Both sets, Jews and then Christians have continually allowed paganism into their teachings.

What you are "trying to point out," you have not provided any credible, verifiable, historical evidence for. OTOH the article from the Jewish Encyclopedia, which I posted, shows that the ancient Jews derived their teachings on eternal, unending punishment for the unrighteous, from scripture. I highlighted the scripture references in blue for those who seem to have trouble seeing them in the article.

Apology accepted.

 

[Der Alte]

It matters not what you believe when it comes to my comment. It's obvious that you do not believe in universal salvation, so I used that in my post to address your claim that you have provided "evidence" from an Encyclopedia while everyone else here has only provided "personal opinions" (and the like) that don't amount to a hill of beans, according to you and in light of your "evidence", which should be heeded as "truth" given it's source (an Encyclopedia).

I don't see how one out-of-context quote from Herzog proves anything, about anything. As I said before it looks like irrelevant in your face argumentation which does not address any point under discussion here.

This despite the fact that perhaps not all scholars would agree with your Encyclopedia entry. Nor would the fact that the Jew is Christ's day believed and taught the eternal torment of the wicked in hell (as I am quite sure that they did) 'prove' that that belief was correct and not something that they adopted from Paganism while in captivity (which, perhaps, is why Christ used it against them ).

You still have not clarified what you mean by, "not all scholars would agree with your Encyclopedia entry." So once again I ask, "How can any scholar disagree with Jewish rabbis and professors recording the ancient Jewish beliefs and practices as recorded in historical Jewish documents?" And how do you think Jesus used some belief supposedly "adopted from Paganism" against the Jews of his day? If you are referring to Luke 16:9-31, the disciples were his primary audience, see. vs. 1, and 17:1.

Even the scriptures (OT) say that God's people would make a covenant with death and come into agreement with hell/sheol.

It also says "your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand".

You still have not shown how this is relevant. This passage refers to punishment that God brought on Israel, in the time of Isaiah, because of their disobedience and idolatry.

What scholarship? I haven't seen any. Here the definition from TDNT.

kolázo to cut short, punish,
kólasis punishment
kolázō.
This means “to cut short,” “to lop,” “to trim,” and figuratively a. “to impede,” “restrain,” and b. “to punish,” and in the passive “to suffer loss.” A common use is for divine chastisement. In inscriptions the deity punishes those who violate cultic laws. Some classical authors regard evil as divine retribution. Philo finds in beneficence and retribution the two primary powers of being, though God would rather forgive than punish, and punishes only those who are not amenable to reason. Punishment brings blessing by freeing from a false frame of soul. The NT uses kolázō in Acts 4:21 and 2 Pet. 2:9. Only the latter refers to God’s punishment. The wicked will be under punishment between death and judgment, i.e., until their destiny is finally fixed.
kólasis.
This word, meaning “punishment,” is used for divine punishment in 2 Macc. 4:38; 4 Macc. 8:9. In the NT it occurs in Matt. 25:46: Those who fail the practical ethical task will go away to eternal punishment. The only other instance is in 1 Jn. 4:18, which says that fear is its own punishment (cf. 3:18). This fear is driven out by love, which is free from every fear.
J. SCHNEIDER, III, 814–17​

Exactly! To CUT SHORT!! LOP!! TRIM!! IMPEDE!! RESTRAIN!!

It means TO PRUNE!!
You think that God likens himself to a Gardener and us to trees and vines, etc for nothing?

My previous response. “What gets "pruned" and why?” Note how I am being accused of denying/ignoring the meaning of this word but this response implies that the ONLY meaning is "prune," and ignores everything highlighted, above. The fact that God does refer to himself as a gardener and us as trees, vines, etc. is not license to turn everything into a gardening metaphor.

I notice that you didn't highlight in red:
in the passive “to suffer loss."
Wow, how might that be reconciled with:
1Co 3:14-15 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

What I did not highlight is irrelevant, since I provided the complete definition, and I already explained I’m showing the greater part of the definition which virtually all universalists ignore. Note, how you ignored the greater part of this definition, above, to emphasize “prune.” As I pointed out before, the word kolasis does not occur in this verse. Kolasis is used only for the unrighteous, this vs. refers to what happens to the works of Christians.

Nor did you highlight:
A common use is for divine chastisement.

Is "chastisement" the same as "torture"? Is "torture" an acceptable form of "chastisement"? And is God so incapable of "chastising" HIS children that this punishment must go on and on and on and never cease for He isn't ever going to be capable of actually "correcting" us?

I do not see the definition “torture” anywhere! Once again secular humanistic rationalization is not evidence. What any person concludes is or is not an “acceptable form of "chastisement", by God, is irrelevant! This is not about finite humans trying to decide what God is/is not capable of doing.

You did highlight "divine punishment"; would "divine punishment" be paramount to an eternity of endless torment in hell?

And before you tell me that this is not what 'you' believe; I never said it is. I am simply pointing it out in relation to the topic of this tread.

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. It appears you are trying to define everything by what you consider is right, just, acceptable, etc.

 

[angelmom01]

From the same link to the Jewish Encyclopedia poster earlier:

Nature and Situation.

The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch was originally in the "valley of the son 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). For this reason the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Soṭah 22a); according to Gen. R. ix. 9, the words "very good" in Gen. i. 31 refer to hell;

Would hardly seem to be the case. Why would God call hell "very good", when God himself called Gehenna an abomination:

Jer 32:32-35 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
​

We are to believe that such an act is sin and even an abomination to the Lord, something that never even entered into His mind, when men do it, but it's something that He Himself has prepared for the wicked and even called "very good"?

*snip* The "fiery furnace" that Abraham saw (Gen. xv. 17, Hebr.) was Gehenna (Mek. xx. 18b, 71b; comp. Enoch, xcviii. 3, ciii. 8; Matt. xiii. 42, 50; 'Er. 19a, where the "fiery furnace" is also identified with the gate of Gehenna). Opinions also vary as to the situation, extent, and nature of hell. The statement that Gehenna is situated in the valley of Hinnom near Jerusalem, in the "accursed valley" (Enoch, xxvii. 1 et seq.), means simply that it has a gate there. It was in Zion, and had a gate in Jerusalem (Isa. xxxi. 9). It had three gates, one in the wilderness, one in the sea, and one in Jerusalem ('Er. 19a). The gate lies between two palm-trees in the valley of Hinnom, from which smoke is continually rising (ib.). The mouth is narrow, impeding the smoke, but below Gehenna extends indefinitely (Men. 99b).

Ok, but let's not forget that THE EARTH is called HIS FOOTSTOOL (Isa 66:1 and others), and HIS FEET are "like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace" (Rev 1:15)

Nor should we forget what God himself calls "a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day"?

Isa 65:2-5 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
​

And where does He "recompense"?

Isa 65:6-7 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.
​

Because where are the righteous, as well as the wicked and sinner, "recompensed"?

Pro 11:31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.
​

*snip* The fire of Gehenna never goes out *snip*

Is that what the scriptures say? Or do the scriptures say that this fire is "not quenched"?

There is a smell of sulfur in Gehenna (Enoch, lxvii. 6). This agrees with the Greek idea of hell (Lucian, Αληθεῖς Ιστορίαι, i. 29, in Dietrich, "Abraxas," p. 36). The sulfurous smell of the Tiberian medicinal springs was ascribed to their connection with Gehenna. *snip*

Interesting that the "sulfurous smell" is attributed to "medicinal springs".

In Isa. lxvi. 16, 24 it is said that God judges by means of fire. Gehenna is dark in spite of the immense masses of fire; it is like night (Yeb. 109b; comp. Job x. 22). The same idea also occurs in Enoch, x. 4, lxxxii. 2; Matt. viii. 12, xxii. 13, xxv. 30 (comp. Schwally, l.c. p. 176).
It is assumed that there is an angel-prince in charge of Gehenna. He says to God: "Put everything into my sea; nourish me with the seed of Seth; I am hungry." But God refuses his request, telling him to take the heathen peoples (Shab. 104). God says to the angel-prince: "I punish the slanderers from above, and I also punish them from below with glowing coals" ('Ar. 15b). The souls of the sons of Korah were burned, and the angel-prince gnashed his teeth at them on account of their flattery of Korah (Sanh. 52a). Gehenna cries: "Give me the heretics and the sinful [Roman] power" ('Ab. Zarah 17a).

Interesting that God "negotiates" with this "angel-prince in charge of Gehenna".

Judgment.
*snip*
There are three categories of men; the wholly pious and the arch-sinners are not purified, but only those between these two classes (Ab. R. N. 41). A similar view is expressed in the Babylonian Talmud, which adds that those who have sinned themselves but have not led others into sin remain for twelve months in Gehenna; "after twelve months their bodies are destroyed, their souls are burned, and the wind strews the ashes under the feet of the pious. 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. 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).

So the Jews believed in the annihilation of the wicked, or at least some of them. And Jesus did not correct their beliefs but reinforced them?

The felicity of the pious in paradise excites the wrath of the sinners who behold it when they come from hell (Lev. R. xxxii.). 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). The fire of Gehenna does not touch the Jewish sinners because they confess their sins before the gates of hell and return to God ('Er. 19a).

Of course, they didn't believe that Jews themselves would go to hell.

As mentioned above, heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b).

Of course, their own oppressors will go there.

*snip* Valley of Ge-Hinnom.(From a photograph by Bonfils.)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). Enoch also holds (xlviii. 9) that the sinners will disappear like chaff before the faces of the elect. There will be no Gehenna in the future world, however, for God will take the sun out of its case, and it will heal the pious with its rays and will punish the sinners (Ned. 8b).

More annihilation?

Sin and Merit.
It is frequently said that certain sins will lead man into Gehenna. The name "Gehenna" itself is explained to mean that unchastity will lead to Gehenna (

; 'Er. 19a); so also will adultery, idolatry, pride, mockery, hypocrisy, anger, etc. (Soṭah 4b, 41b; Ta'an. 5a; B. B. 10b, 78b; 'Ab. Zarah 18b; Ned. 22a). Hell awaits one who indulges in unseemly speech (Shab. 33a; Enoch, xxvii.); who always follows the advice of his wife (B. M. 59a);

who instructs an unworthy pupil (Ḥul. 133b); who turns away from the Torah (B. B. 79a; comp. Yoma 72b). For further details see 'Er. 18b, 101a; Sanh. 109b; Ḳid. 81a; Ned. 39b; B. M. 19a.

Yep, don't believe like me.... go to hell.

On the other hand, there are merits that preserve man from going to hell; e.g., philanthropy, fasting, visiting the sick, reading the Shema' and Hallel, and eating the three meals on the Sabbath (Giṭ. 7a; B. B. 10a; B. M. 85a; Ned. 40a; Ber. 15b; Pes. 118a; Shab. 118a). Israelites in general are less endangered (Ber. 10a) than heretics, or, according to B. B. 10a, than the heathen. Scholars (Ḥag. 27a; comp. Men. 99b and Yoma 87a), the poor, and the pious (Yeb. 102b) are especially protected.

Nothing about a Messiah or faith?

Three classes of men do not see the face of hell: those that live in penury, those suffering with intestinal catarrh, and those that are pressed by their creditors ('Er. 41b).

Maybe I'm safe, then.

It would seem that the expressions "doomed to hell" and "to be saved from hell" must be interpreted hyperbolically. A bad woman is compared to Gehenna in Yeb. 63b.

:o

Well, maybe it's "that woman Jezebel"??


The claim was made that Christ never corrected the Jewish religious leaders about their belief in eternal torment. I'd have to disagree, as He most assuredly accused the shepherds of leading His sheep astray, by teaching the the doctrines of men as the truths of God. The poor Sadduccees didn't know the scriptures or the power of God.

 

[Der Alte]

From the same link to the Jewish Encyclopedia poster earlier:

From the same link to the Jewish Encyclopedia poster earlier:

Would hardly seem to be the case. Why would God call hell "very good", when God himself called Gehenna an abomination:

A deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of what God said.

Jer 32:32-35 Because of all the evil of the children of Israel and of the children of Judah, which they have done to provoke me to anger, they, their kings, their princes, their priests, and their prophets, and the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And they have turned unto me the back, and not the face: though I taught them, rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to receive instruction. But they set their abominations in the house, which is called by my name, to defile it. And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.​

We are to believe that such an act is sin and even an abomination to the Lord, something that never even entered into His mind, when men do it, but it's something that He Himself has prepared for the wicked and even called "very good"?

How can you reasonably discuss this or any other topic when you blatantly distort and misinterpret scripture? This passage says nothing about God's judgment but condemns the pagan religious practice of sacrificing children to pagan deities. The Israelites did two things which offended God, neither of which he commanded, they built high places to the pagan deity Baal, and sacrificed their children to that deity.

Ok, but let's not forget that THE EARTH is called HIS FOOTSTOOL (Isa 66:1 and others), and HIS FEET are "like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace" (Rev 1:15)

And you think this is relevant, how? What John saw in a vision appeared to be similar to something else. What is your point?

Nor should we forget what God himself calls "a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day"?

Isa 65:2-5 I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts; A people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face; that sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon altars of brick; Which remain among the graves, and lodge in the monuments, which eat swine's flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels; Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.

And your point is?

And where does He "recompense"?

Isa 65:6-7 Behold, it is written before me: I will not keep silence, but will recompense, even recompense into their bosom, Your iniquities, and the iniquities of your fathers together, saith the LORD, which have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me upon the hills: therefore will I measure their former work into their bosom.

Again what is your point? Read the rest of the chapter and note the context, God did exactly that, there in the time of Isaiah.

Eze 11:21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.​

Because where are the righteous, as well as the wicked and sinner, "recompensed"?

Pro 11:31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.​

This is the false exegetical tactic called "proof texting" taking widely divergent verses and slamming them together without regard for the context.

Is that what the scriptures say? Or do the scriptures say that this fire is "not quenched"?

And you think there is a difference?

Interesting that the "sulfurous smell" is attributed to "medicinal springs"

Interesting that God "negotiates" with this "angel-prince in charge of Gehenna".

So the Jews believed in the annihilation of the wicked, or at least some of them. And Jesus did not correct their beliefs but reinforced them?

Of course, they didn't believe that Jews themselves would go to hell.

Of course, their own oppressors will go there.

More annihilation?

Yep, don't believe like me.... go to hell.

Nothing about a Messiah or faith? [IRRELEVANT!]

Maybe I'm safe, then.

Well, maybe it's "that woman Jezebel"??

Meaningless oneliners!

The claim was made that Christ never corrected the Jewish religious leaders about their belief in eternal torment. I'd have to disagree, as He most assuredly accused the shepherds of leading His sheep astray, by teaching the the doctrines of men as the truths of God. The poor Sadduccees didn't know the scriptures or the power of God.

What you would have to "disagree" with is irrelevant. There is nothing here or in the entire NT where Christ specifically "corrected the Jewish religious leaders about their belief in eternal torment."

 

[angelmom01]

I don't see how one out-of-context quote from Herzog proves anything, about anything. As I said before it looks like irrelevant in your face argumentation which does not address any point under discussion here.

Out of context? So I need to quote the whole encyclopedia to keep it in context? Or would you like to explain how it was taken out of context? How a statement OF FACT, like stating that “of the first six Christian schools of theology four taught universal salvation” can be understood any differently in any other “context” then to be understood to say EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS?

You still have not clarified what you mean by, "not all scholars would agree with your Encyclopedia entry." So once again I ask, "How can any scholar disagree with Jewish rabbis and professors recording the ancient Jewish beliefs and practices as recorded in historical Jewish documents?" And how do you think Jesus used some belief supposedly "adopted from Paganism" against the Jews of his day? If you are referring to Luke 16:9-31, the disciples were his primary audience, see. vs. 1, and 17:1.

Not all Jews believe in hell and even among those who do many believe that it is a temporary place in which one goes to be “cleansed”. Links to such have already been provided to you on that, but you just dismiss them. You claim that what it is important is what the Jews of Jesus’ day believed. Fine! So now prove that what the Jews believed when Jesus arrived on the scene WAS CORRECT. You, apparently, believe that just knowing WHAT they believed is enough to prove that they were CORRECT. You claim that Jesus did not correct them, so they must have been correct. Well, I disagree on both counts and have already stated why. All of which are based ON SCRIPTURE, not encyclopedia entries. However useful they might be sometimes, they are not the final word on scripture.

You still have not shown how this is relevant. This passage refers to punishment that God brought on Israel, in the time of Isaiah, because of their disobedience and idolatry.

And? Who was it that was given as an example to us? And you think it’s not relevant to us?

My previous response. “What gets "pruned" and why?” Note how I am being accused of denying/ignoring the meaning of this word but this response implies that the ONLY meaning is "prune," and ignores everything highlighted, above. The fact that God does refer to himself as a gardener and us as trees, vines, etc. is not license to turn everything into a gardening metaphor.

Bull; it points out the ONE meaning that you keep ignoring, though many of the words contained in the very definition that you posted support it. How do you think God “punishes” and “corrects”? Peter calls it “a fiery trial”. You don’t take that literally do you? God is identified as “a consuming fire”, our works are “tried by fire” and any “hay, wood and stubble” is BURNED UP; Etc, etc, etc.

You seem to want to claim that this applies TO BELIEVERS ONLY; well, dear sir, we ALL start out as UNBELIEVERS; it was WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS that Christ died for us. It is this FIERY TRIAL that we go through that CONFORMS us into the image of HIS SON.

What I did not highlight is irrelevant, since I provided the complete definition, and I already explained I’m showing the greater part of the definition which virtually all universalists ignore. Note, how you ignored the greater part of this definition, above, to emphasize “prune.” As I pointed out before, the word kolasis does not occur in this verse. Kolasis is used only for the unrighteous, this vs. refers to what happens to the works of Christians.

What you did not highlight is important when it is what YOU are ignoring and what you are accusing others of believing FALSELY due to “humanistic reasoning” that cannot be supported any other way. But then, yet, THERE IT IS, right in the definition that YOU posted. It’s called HYPOCRISY, my friend, and I am tired of dealing with it. Your posts are full of it. You accuse others of doing nothing but INSULTING you and ask them if that’s the ONLY way they can have a discussion and yet your very own posts are FULL OF INSULTS. Again, hypocrisy. And I am quite done dealing with it.

I do not see the definition “torture” anywhere! Once again secular humanistic rationalization is not evidence. What any person concludes is or is not an “acceptable form of "chastisement", by God, is irrelevant! This is not about finite humans trying to decide what God is/is not capable of doing.

Do you own a dictionary or a thesaurus, perhaps? If not you can look up the word “torment” online and see if you don’t ALSO find the word “torture”. Then you can come back to me and claim “humanistic reasoning”. OK?
God did not command us to love and forgive our enemies because He plans to torture/torment/annihilate/whatever HIS enemies. Christ said BE YE PERFECT! LIKE WHOM??? So I can most certainly know what God is or is not “capable” of. LOVE NEVER FAILS! And it certainly doesn’t TORMENT FOR ETERNITY, especially IN FIRE.

Death (that last enemy) IS DESTROYED!! If it is DESTROYED then there cannot be ANY who continue TO ABIDE IN IT FOR ETERNITY. But this in NOT about Universal Salvation ANYWAY, no matter what you might THINK you know about what I believe, so why you want to keep going there just because I used it in an example, is beyond me. The topic is “HELL”. But it seems you found your straw-man?

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. It appears you are trying to define everything by what you consider is right, just, acceptable, etc.

I’m sorry. Are you claiming that God is not just and will not do what is right and acceptable? Or are you merely claiming that only YOUR idea of what that is valid because only YOUR beliefs are based on scripture?

 

[angelmom01]

A deliberate distortion and misrepresentation of what God said.

No it isn't. God called it an abomination and said he neither commanded it nor thought about it. If he neither commanded it nor thought about it then how is it a "figure" of that which he had already created?

How can you reasonably discuss this or any other topic when you blatantly distort and misinterpret scripture? This passage says nothing about God's judgment but condemns the pagan religious practice of sacrificing children to pagan deities. The Israelites did two things which offended God, neither of which he commanded, they built high places to the pagan deity Baal, and sacrificed their children to that deity.

I know exactly what it is about. Are you wishing to claim that our Father in heaven is of the "Do as say, not as I do" crowd?

And you think this is relevant, how? What John saw in a vision appeared to be similar to something else. What is your point?

Compare SPIRITUAL THINGS to SPIRITUAL and perhaps you will one day see my point.

And your point is?

Same as above.

Again what is your point? Read the rest of the chapter and note the context, God did exactly that, there in the time of Isaiah.

Eze 11:21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.​

When did God change?

This is the false exegetical tactic called "proof texting" taking widely divergent verses and slamming them together without regard for the context.

Call it whatever you want; they are speaking about the same thing... how and where we are recompensed. And you cannot compare spiritual things with spiritual if you don't COMPARE and RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth. You need to be able to do more than have the ability TO READ to understand the scriptures. If that were not so we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit and we wouldn't be told to study and compare and rightly divide. We wouldn't be told that we SHOULD BE looking on those things are ARE NOT SEEN (instead of those things that are). And we wouldn't be told that it is the glory of God TO CONCEAL a thing, but the honor of kings to SEARCH OUT a matter.

And you think there is a difference?

And you think there isn't? You think a fire cannot go out ON IT'S OWN without being "quenched"? You think a house is going to burn forever, even after it's burned to the ground and there is nothing left to burn, if the firemen don't ever show up to put it out?

Meaningless oneliners!

Yeah, I noticed that you think that both Christ and faith are irrelevant.

What you would have to "disagree" with is irrelevant. There is nothing here or in the entire NT where Christ specifically "corrected the Jewish religious leaders about their belief in eternal torment."

Christ never spoke of literally tormenting the wicked in fire for all eternity. He used it ALLEGORICALLY.

 

[Der Alte]

I don't see how one out-of-context quote from Herzog proves anything, about anything. As I said before it looks like irrelevant in your face argumentation which does not address any point under discussion here.

Out of context? So I need to quote the whole encyclopedia to keep it in context? Or would you like to explain how it was taken out of context? How a statement OF FACT, like stating that “of the first six Christian schools of theology four taught universal salvation” can be understood any differently in any other “context” then to be understood to say EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS?

Your out-of-context citation shown in blue.

The earliest Universalists, more strictly so-called, were Zoroaster (whose date is variously estimated from 1500 to 500 BC) and his followers the Parsees, who remain in this faith unto the present day (see Zoroaster, Zoroastrianism). Next in order of time were Jews, some of whom since shortly before the time of Christ were Universalists. Among Christians and those associated with the Church the first advocates of Universalism were Gnostics (the Valentinians, Carpocratians, and Basilidians, about 130 A.D.: see Gnosticism Basiliddes and the Basilidians; Carpocrates and the Carpocratians; Valentinus, Valentinains although their doctrine as to individualism is not entirely clear. At the same time or later, certain orthodox Christians who were the authors of the forged Sibylline Oracles (q.v.) were undoubtedly Universalists.

The earliest system of Universalistic theology was by Clement of Alexandria (q.v.), who was the head of the theological school in that city until 202 A.D. His successor in the school was the great Origen (q.v.) who was the most distinguished advocate of this doctrine in all time. His mind has something of the largeness of Plato combined with Christian piety, and his influence was felt for many centuries throughout the East and to some extent in the West. The next great philosophical theologian in the East was Gregory of Nyssa (q.v.) Then came Theodore Mopsuestia (q.v.), distinguished as the promulgator of the grammatico-historical exegesis (see EXEGESIS OR HERMENEUTICS, III., 3; and ANTIOCH, SCHOOL OF), and of a Biblical scientific theology containing a portion of the theory of evolution applied to the history of mankind. His influence for some centuries was more extensive than that of Augustine. Johannes Cassianus (q.v.) should also be mentioned. He was the author of Semipelagianism (q.v.). Under the instruction of these great teachers many other theologians believed in universal salvation; and indeed the whole Eastern Church (q.v.) until after 500 A.D. was inclined to it.

In the West this doctrine had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the Church at large. In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional mortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown.

Doederlin says that, “In proportion as any man was eminent in learning Christian antiquity, the more did he cherish and defend the hope of the termination of human torments.” In the dark ages Universalism almost disappeared, but in the ninth century it has one great representative, John Scotus Erigena (see Scotus, Erigena, Johanned) who was the chief the chief Christian luminary of his time. In the Middle Ages some of the lesser mystics and probably Johann Tauler and Jan van Ruysbroeck (qq.v) and one leading scholastic Albertus Magnus (q.v.) were Universalists. In the times of the Reformation, Universalists were found among Anabaptists, Lollards, and Protestant mystics: and later there were increasing numbers of individual believers in this doctrine in all Northern European countries, including such men as Kant, Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and many of his followers, Archbishop Tillotson, Tennyson, the Brownings, Wordsworth, and Coleridge. (The ascription of universalism to many of the ancient, medieval, and modern theologians and institutions would be disapproved by many scholars of the present, probably by a majority. In many cases the expression of the “larger hope” or of doubt as to the endlessness of future punishment is all that can be fairly claimed. A.H.N.)​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here is the original OP of this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7323024-101/#post49849886

There is also an interesting thread on the NCR board asking the Jews about hell
In fact, I just bumped it up over there

http://www.christianforums.com/t7411036/
JEWS: Do You Believe in Hell?

OP
I'm Christian but have two good friends who are Jewish. Both of them have told me that Jews don't believe in Hell. I want to know if this is the general consensus amongst the Jewish community.

So, do you believe in Hell, or Satan, or Heaven for that matter? Why or why not?

Just curious.

Thanks!

-Brooke

 

[Der Alte]

Not all Jews believe in hell and even among those who do many believe that it is a temporary place in which one goes to be “cleansed”. Links to such have already been provided to you on that, but you just dismiss them. You claim that what it is important is what the Jews of Jesus’ day believed. Fine! So now prove that what the Jews believed when Jesus arrived on the scene WAS CORRECT.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that the documented beliefs of the ancient Jews, based on their first hand knowledge of the Hebrew scriptures was wrong, without OBTW your having any knowledge of Hebrew. Good luck!

You, apparently, believe that just knowing WHAT they believed is enough to prove that they were CORRECT. You claim that Jesus did not correct them, so they must have been correct. Well, I disagree on both counts and have already stated why. All of which are based ON SCRIPTURE, not encyclopedia entries. However useful they might be sometimes, they are not the final word on scripture.

The is no scriptural evidence in the entire NT where Jesus corrected the beliefs of the Jews, of his day, concerning eternal, unending punishment of the unrighteous. Your reference to encylopedias is meaningless. Demonstrating scriptural truth does NOT mean taking a piece of this verse, and a piece of that verse and slamming them together irrespective of context and claiming they are talking about the same thing, as you have done.

And? Who was it that was given as an example to us? And you think it’s not relevant to us?

Bull; it points out the ONE meaning that you keep ignoring, though many of the words contained in the very definition that you posted support it. How do you think God “punishes” and “corrects”? Peter calls it “a fiery trial”. You don’t take that literally do you? God is identified as “a consuming fire”, our works are “tried by fire” and any “hay, wood and stubble” is BURNED UP; Etc, etc, etc.

More examples of out-of-context bits and pieces, proof texts, NOT systematic theology.

You seem to want to claim that this applies TO BELIEVERS ONLY; well, dear sir, we ALL start out as UNBELIEVERS; it was WHILE WE WERE YET SINNERS that Christ died for us. It is this FIERY TRIAL that we go through that CONFORMS us into the image of HIS SON.

I showed clearly from the passage, in context, that your one proof text from Corinthians was directed at believing Christians, talking about their work, built on the foundation of Christ, NOT addressing the fate of the unrighteous. You don't like what scripture says, talk to God. I didn't write it, I only quoted it to show how you were misrepresenting the word of God.

What you did not highlight is important when it is what YOU are ignoring and what you are accusing others of believing FALSELY due to “humanistic reasoning” that cannot be supported any other way. But then, yet, THERE IT IS, right in the definition that YOU posted.

That is right and I posted the complete definition I omitted nothing, I ignored nothing. But you continue to ignore the greater definition, which I did highlight.

It’s called HYPOCRISY, my friend, and I am tired of dealing with it. Your posts are full of it. You accuse others of doing nothing but INSULTING you and ask them if that’s the ONLY way they can have a discussion and yet your very own posts are FULL OF INSULTS. Again, hypocrisy. And I am quite done dealing with it.

Good then quit responding to me.

Do you own a dictionary or a thesaurus, perhaps? If not you can look up the word “torment” online and see if you don’t ALSO find the word “torture”. Then you can come back to me and claim “humanistic reasoning”. OK?

Your argument is fallacious and irrelevant. The definition "torture" is NOT part of the meaning of "Kolasis!"<period> end of story.

God did not command us to love and forgive our enemies because He plans to torture/torment/annihilate/whatever HIS enemies.

Christ said BE YE PERFECT! LIKE WHOM??? So I can most certainly know what God is or is not “capable” of. LOVE NEVER FAILS! And it certainly doesn’t TORMENT FOR ETERNITY, especially IN FIRE.

Secular humanistic rationalization, NOT scripture!

Death (that last enemy) IS DESTROYED!! If it is DESTROYED then there cannot be ANY who continue TO ABIDE IN IT FOR ETERNITY. But this in NOT about Universal Salvation ANYWAY, no matter what you might THINK you know about what I believe, so why you want to keep going there just because I used it in an example, is beyond me. The topic is “HELL”. But it seems you found your straw-man?

More out-of-context bits and pieces of scripture. Let me try that. The Bible says, in 2 verses, "There is no God!" But when we read the context it says, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." See how the context makes all the difference?

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. It appears you are trying to define everything by what you consider is right, just, acceptable, etc.

I’m sorry. Are you claiming that God is not just and will not do what is right and acceptable? Or are you merely claiming that only YOUR idea of what that is valid because only YOUR beliefs are based on scripture?

I'm sorry is the only way you can discuss is to deliberately distort and misrepresent what I say?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What I found interesting was out of about half dozen Bible versions I checked, only 2 had the correct transliterated word used in the greek text, and that was YoungsLT, a favorite translation of mine, Rotherhams', another favorite of mine, came close but without the article "the" before that word

Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

Matt 23:33 "Serpents! produce of vipers! how? ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV <1067> "
[Ezekiel 39:12/Revelation 14:14]

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm

Textus Rec.) Matthew 23:33 ofeiV gennhmata ecidnwn pwV fughte apo thV krisewV thV geennhV

W-H ) Matthew 23:33 ofeiV gennhmata ecidnwn pwV fughte apo thV krisewV thV geennhV

http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm

NKJV) Matthew 23:33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

NASB) Matthew 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

ASV) Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?

RSV) Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Young) Matthew 23:33 `Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?

Rotherham) Matthew 23:33 Serpents! broods of vipers! how should ye flee from the judgment of gehenna?

Douay-Rheims) Matthew 23:33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

Darby) Matthew 23:33 Serpents, offspring of vipers, how should ye escape the judgment of hell?

 

[Der Alte]

No it isn't. God called it an abomination and said he neither commanded it nor thought about it. If he neither commanded it nor thought about it then how is it a "figure" of that which he had already created?

What God neither commanded nor thought about was Israelites making idols of Baal and sacrificing their children in the fire to Baal! The passage does not address anything about God's judgment

I know exactly what it is about. Are you wishing to claim that our Father in heaven is of the "Do as say, not as I do" crowd?

More of that deliberately distorting and misrepresenting what I said.

Compare SPIRITUAL THINGS to SPIRITUAL and perhaps you will one day see my point.

Same as above.

I call this the SPAM-Fig copout, when scripture, as written, contradicts someone's pet doctrine then it is explained away as spiritual, poetic, allegory, metaphor, or figurative.

Again what is your point? Read the rest of the chapter and note the context, God did exactly that, there in the time of Isaiah.

Eze 11:21 But as for them whose heart walketh after the heart of their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their way upon their own heads, saith the Lord GOD.​

When did God change?

What is this response supposed to mean?

Call it whatever you want; they are speaking about the same thing... how and where we are recompensed. And you cannot compare spiritual things with spiritual if you don't COMPARE and RIGHTLY DIVIDE the word of truth. You need to be able to do more than have the ability TO READ to understand the scriptures. If that were not so we wouldn't need the Holy Spirit and we wouldn't be told to study and compare and rightly divide. We wouldn't be told that we SHOULD BE looking on those things are ARE NOT SEEN (instead of those things that are). And we wouldn't be told that it is the glory of God TO CONCEAL a thing, but the honor of kings to SEARCH OUT a matter.

SPAM-Fig, every false religious group around uses this argument to support their teachings.

And you think there isn't? You think a fire cannot go out ON IT'S OWN without being "quenched"? You think a house is going to burn forever, even after it's burned to the ground and there is nothing left to burn, if the firemen don't ever show up to put it out?

What is your point?

Yeah, I noticed that you think that both Christ and faith are irrelevant.

More of that deliberate distortion and misrepresenting what I said.

Christ never spoke of literally tormenting the wicked in fire for all eternity. He used it ALLEGORICALLY.

Right! "Allegory" is the "A" in SPAM-Fig. Any verse in scripture can be made to mean anything, or nothing, by arbitrarily saying it is symbolic, poetic, allegory, metaphor, or figurative, and a few other figures of speech."

 

[Der Alte]

What I found interesting was out of about half dozen Bible versions I checked, only 2 had the correct transliterated word used in the greek text, and that was YoungsLT, a favorite translation of mine, Rotherhams', another favorite of mine, came close but without the article "the" before that word

Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

Matt 23:33 "Serpents! produce of vipers! how? ye may be fleeing from the judging of the geennhV <1067> "
[Ezekiel 39:12/Revelation 14:14]

Greek New Testament - Parallel Greek New Testament by John Hurt

Textus Rec.) Matthew 23:33 ofeiV gennhmata ecidnwn pwV fughte apo thV krisewV thV geennhV

W-H ) Matthew 23:33 ofeiV gennhmata ecidnwn pwV fughte apo thV krisewV thV geennhV

Search for 'Genesis 1:1' in the version

NKJV) Matthew 23:33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

NASB) Matthew 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

ASV) Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers, how shall ye escape the judgment of hell?

RSV) Matthew 23:33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Young) Matthew 23:33 `Serpents! brood of vipers! how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?

Rotherham) Matthew 23:33 Serpents! broods of vipers! how should ye flee from the judgment of gehenna?

Douay-Rheims) Matthew 23:33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

Darby) Matthew 23:33 Serpents, offspring of vipers, how should ye escape the judgment of hell?

If as some people claim "Gehinnom" or "Gehenna" was only a trash dump outside Jerusalem, I wonder why Jesus thought there was some kind of judgment in a trash dump that the scribes, Pharisees, etc. could somehow flee from? Apparently it was a well known, widespread "judgment", i.e. "the judgment" not "a judgment."