There is no hell. (2)

[LittleLambofJesus]

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."

That could depend on how both the Jews and Christians view the jewish/hebrew book of Revelation

Reve 19:3 And a second-time they have declared "allelouia and the Smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages". [Luke 19:41,44]

DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City - Page 2 - Christian Forums
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

 

[angelmom01]

Good then quit responding to me.

Not a problem.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not a problem.

 

[angelmom01]

That could depend on how both the Jews and Christians view the jewish/hebrew book of Revelation

Reve 19:3 And a second-time they have declared "allelouia and the Smoke of Her is ascending into the Ages of the Ages". [Luke 19:41,44]

DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City - Page 2 - Christian Forums
DO NOT WEEP!!!!! The Great City

Amen! God himself tells us what HE calls "a SMOKE in my nose, A FIRE that burneth all the day". It is man's "holier than thou" attitude.

The wrath of God ABIDETH (present tense, according to John 3:36) upon them that believe not.

That is why the way of LIFE IS ABOVE to the wise, that he may ~depart from~ HELL BENEATH.

Some people want to say that scripture is so "plain" that any 4 year old who can read it can understand it. Makes you wonder what they think the Holy Spirit is for then? God speaks in PARABLES and ALLEGORIES and yet if you claim to believe that such is the case and that the "deep things" of God need to be "spiritually discerned" you are accused of not believing the word of God and/or of dismissing the bible.

God has laid many things out in patterns that are consistent throughout the text - from Gen to Rev. It is the very reason that I believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God. There is a consistent division between:

the first man (Adam) vs the second man (Last Adam)
Flesh vs Spirit
Law (OC) vs Grace (NC)
NIGHT/DARKNESS/YESTERDAY/DEATH vs DAY/LIGHT/TODAY/LIFE
The Child vs The Son
The earnest vs The adoption\
bodies terrestrial vs bodies celestial
the earth vs the heavens

And that's just the short list, I'm sure.

The "types" in Genesis alone are enough to fill books.

Christ said: "I am come to send fire on the earth" for "NOW is the judgment of this world" and yet people are looking forward to a judgment that is yet to come, one that will last for eternity?

It doesn't matter that scripture says that we are recompensed "in the earth" and even "into [our] bosom". Or that THE EARTH itself, is called His "footstool" (the heavens His throne) and His "feet" are as fine brass "as if they burn in a furnace". Yeah, none of that is relevant to us or to judgment. NOT!!

The significance of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego being cast into the fire BOUND only later to be seen walking LOOSE, with a FOURTH MAN like unto the Son of God? None, apparently.

But, anyway.... gotta run... places to go, people to see, things to do.

 

[Jpark]

These two Scriptures are evidence that there is a hell.

Matthew 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:

Luke 8:31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss.

How does one explain this?

No Christian can dismiss the existence of hell without dismissing the existence of demons. The Bible clearly shows that there is a hell, at least for demons. By saying there is no hell, then one must be saying there are no demons.

 

[Jpark]

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?

Evidently, Gehenna was used to describe the torments of the Abyss.

Jesus used a real location to describe a spiritual location.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Evidently, Gehenna was used to describe the torments of the Abyss.

Jesus used a real location to describe a spiritual location.

Thanks for your input....took me awhile to scroll past your long "SIGGY" though.

I guess I will have to turn off "show siggies" again

 

[Der Alte]

Not a problem.

But that does not mean I will stop responding to your posts.

 

[Jpark]

Thanks for your input....took me awhile to scroll past your long "SIGGY" though.

I guess I will have to turn off "show siggies" again

Is it easier to read now? I will be leaving General Theology.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Is it easier to read now? I will be leaving General Theology.

For what reasons if I may ask.....

 

[Rajni]

<levity>Isn't there an old song, usually sung around Christmas, declaring that there's no hell? Something about the first "no-hell" was said by an angel to certain poor shepherds in fields where they lay keeping their sheep. On a cold winter's night. That was, you know, so deep. Later it was changed to "Noel" so the carolers could actually get through the song before debating it. </levity>



,

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For what reasons if I may ask.....

The member posted this on his PB on why he was leaving....interesting

http://www.christianforums.com/users/233190/

quote "I'll be leaving Christian Forums now. My input is no longer necessary.

You Christians have been warned. Your disbelief in hell and demons, your gradual acceptance of evolution, your belief in the established Trinity, your constant bickering concerning the Scriptures, and the waning faith of your Jewish brethren will result in Atheism.

Christianity will succumb to Atheism."

 

[Norbert L]

I don't believe that I said anything about what Jews believe (then or now), initially; that was another poster. I simply demonstrated that posting something from an encyclopedia will not "prove" anything when it comes to proving or disproving the bible - no matter how many times you post it. No one is going to take the word of an encyclopedia (or concordance or lexicon) alone and use it to interpret scripture. Or least they shouldn't, IMO.

This is what I was referring to:

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) Post # 971

Which would take quite a bit of research to establish and from the little I've read coming from Messanics, I would guess it could be like the Pharisees and Saducees with the resurrection of the dead. Where a person may probably find similiar divisions as with Christians. Such as eternal torment in hell vs. Annihilation.

 

[angelmom01]

This is what I was referring to:



Which would take quite a bit of research to establish and from the little I've read coming from Messanics, I would guess it could be like the Pharisees and Saducees with the resurrection of the dead. Where a person may probably find similiar divisions as with Christians. Such as eternal torment in hell vs. Annihilation.

The "as I am quite sure that they did" part?

 

[koolaid]

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.)​

Interesting facts to be sure and I can certainly sympathize with your disagreement. But, to be fair, I'm not quite sure how the parts in red change the context of the parts in blue, as these additional facts don't change any of the previously presented fact. At least not that I can tell. They just provide additional information. And I think it's pretty common knowledge that Universalism is not commonly accepted today, so that really could have gone without saying, anyway. Though I had no idea that it was so widely accepted in the early Christian movement, which I find rather fascinating myself.

 

[Der Alte]

Interesting facts to be sure and I can certainly sympathize with your disagreement. But, to be fair, I'm not quite sure how the parts in red change the context of the parts in blue, as these additional facts don't change any of the previously presented fact. At least not that I can tell. They just provide additional information. And I think it's pretty common knowledge that Universalism is not commonly accepted today, so that really could have gone without saying, anyway. Though I had no idea that it was so widely accepted in the early Christian movement, which I find rather fascinating myself.

Only that universalism in the Christian church originated in Gnosticism and that many examples presented, in our day, as support for universalism, very likely were not. And all in all this digression proves nothing about the topic of this thread, or very little else.

 

[koolaid]

Only that universalism in the Christian church originated in Gnosticism and that many examples presented, in our day, as support for universalism, very likely were not.

I'm not sure what this means. It originated with Gnosticism (even though it actually predates it?) but examples in our day did not? So if they do not originate there, then what is the problem? The examples give in blue were clearly about early Christian, not gnostic, theological schools.

And all in all this digression proves nothing about the topic of this thread, or very little else.

So what the Jews believed up until the coming of Christ is relevant but what the earliest Christians believed after the coming of Christ some of which were Jews including all of the Apostles is irrelevant? Even if the majority believed it and it was what was taught in the majority of the earliest theological schools? And if they did actually believe and teach universalism that early and that widely we shouldn't take that into consideration because it's not relevant to the topic of hell? How is it not? Sure seems relevant to me and something that I would want to at least know when considering the topic especially if I was always told that this was never something believed by the church and always considered to be heresy. Apparently that is not true. And if that is not true then I would have to wonder where the teaching of hell as I understand it today came from and whether or not it is really the truth. That seems important to know and if this is true it would prove or disprove quite a bit about this topic. To say otherwise just shows you own personal bias to only one side of the argument. But more than one side is being presented here. At least three are and all three were mentioned in the article posted but the one reported to be the most commonly believed early on is not the position that you have taken. So maybe that is why you don't see it as proving anything? I would be more inclined to believe the earliest Christians then I would the Jews, but I'd have to look at it more first. Right now it's just interesting but very much so.

 

[angelmom01]

There are obviously three major views to consider and within each of those three there are probably several subsets of views to consider.

When it comes to "eternal torment" even those who believe in it argue over whether or not the fire is literal or figurative and "how" the wicked are "tormented", etc.

When it comes to "annihilation" there seem to be some who claim that the wicked are simply never resurrected, others believe they are but they are cast into the LoF where they, rather than be tormented for eternity, are only tormented until there is nothing left of them.

When it comes to "universal salvation" there could be those those who believe that the lake of fire is literal but temporary; I think most believe it is figurative and temporary; and there are still others who do not believe in punishment after death at all.

And there may be any number of position within all of these categories that are not represented here. But they all do certainly seem to be relevant to the topic of "hell" and defining just exactly "what" it is, "when" it takes place, and "how long" it lasts - in order to know what the final state of the wicked will be.

 

[angelmom01]

<levity>Isn't there an old song, usually sung around Christmas, declaring that there's no hell? Something about the first "no-hell" was said by an angel to certain poor shepherds in fields where they lay keeping their sheep. On a cold winter's night. That was, you know, so deep. Later it was changed to "Noel" so the carolers could actually get through the song before debating it. </levity>



,

I missed that earlier.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm not sure what this means. It originated with Gnosticism (even though it actually predates it?) but examples in our day did not? So if they do not originate there, then what is the problem? The examples give in blue were clearly about early Christian, not gnostic, theological schools.

Please go back and read my post where I quoted Schaff. I tried to summarize, in one sentence, what Schaff said in 2 paragraphs. Yes, some form of universalism predates both Christianity and Judaism but the articles said, and I summarized, "in Christianity the first universalists were Gnostics." The article named several such groups. The concluding paragraph said that of the ancient Christians which are now said to be universalists, by various people, many were not actually universalists. Once again that is a summary of the article, read the citation to understand everything, in context.

So what the Jews believed up until the coming of Christ is relevant but what the earliest Christians believed after the coming of Christ some of which were Jews including all of the Apostles is irrelevant?

If you are going to make wild accusations like this, quote me exactly and ask me about what I actually said and I will discuss it. But I am getting more than a little tired of folks accusing me of saying things I did not say.

Even if the majority believed it and it was what was taught in the majority of the earliest theological schools? And if they did actually believe and teach universalism that early and that widely we shouldn't take that into consideration because it's not relevant to the topic of hell? How is it not?

If you wish to discuss what was said, quote it in context, and I will discuss, but not half truth misrepresentations. I saw nothing about hell in anything quoted from Schaff.

Sure seems relevant to me and something that I would want to at least know when considering the topic especially if I was always told that this was never something believed by the church and always considered to be heresy. Apparently that is not true. And if that is not true then I would have to wonder where the teaching of hell as I understand it today came from and whether or not it is really the truth. That seems important to know and if this is true it would prove or disprove quite a bit about this topic. To say otherwise just shows you own personal bias to only one side of the argument. But more than one side is being presented here. At least three are and all three were mentioned in the article posted but the one reported to be the most commonly believed early on is not the position that you have taken. So maybe that is why you don't see it as proving anything? I would be more inclined to believe the earliest Christians then I would the Jews, but I'd have to look at it more first. Right now it's just interesting but very much so.

If you want to discuss it, then quote it in context and I am more than willing to talk about it. But all I see here is one misrepresentation after another, of what the cited article said and what I said.