There is no Hell (Moved)

[Der Alte]

Again, I don't see you taking the bible as a whole which is what we should be doing. We shouldn't cling to certain verses and throw the rest of the Bible out. If the rest of the Bible does not agree with your beliefs than that's a heads up that something is wrong with your beliefs.
The LOF is a thing. And it will be a former thing. Why else would Christ state there would be no more pain as well as death?? Because the former things, including the LOF will have passed away.

You are misrepresenting my posts. I take the Bible as a whole but what I don't do is take bits and pieces of verses, out-of-context and stick them with other vss. trying to make them appear as a single narrative. The rest of the Bible, in their context, meshes perfectly with what I post. As for the LOF I quoted them "in context." See e.g. my post at this link.

Was Adam a universalist?

Well, somehow, I imagined you may be struggling with some sort of doubt, but I guess not. Forgive me for showing any concern. We all have doubts. Doubt is natural because we are finite creatures and acknowledging doubt is a sign of strength of faith. You may struggle with your own doubt but...

www.christianforums.com

Please note the progression here.

Revelation 21:4​

(4) And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. [present tense]​

***​

Revelation 21:8​

(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have [future tense] their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​

Although vs. 4 says "former things are passed away" In vs. 8 the LOF still exists and is still called the "second death."
Please note the "but" at the beginning of vs. 8 distinguishing it from the preceding. That is the way they are written; I believe that is the way the writer wanted us to understand them.
That's what I call in context.

 

[JulieB67]

Although vs. 4 says "former things are passed away" In vs. 8 the LOF still exists and is still called the "second death."
Please note the "but" at the beginning of vs. 8 distinguishing it from the preceding.

This is what I mean by not taking the Bible as a whole. Even one verse that you have skipped makes a huge difference. Verse 8 goes directly with the context presented in verse 7. Christ is reiterating what will happen at Judgement Day in both those verses to the two different kinds of people.

Revelation 21:7 "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son

Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Again, these two verses go together. He's stating very simply that he that overcomes wil inherit all things but the others will not. He's talking future in those verses - "shall inherit", "shall have their part..."

Verse 8 is not written at all in that it still exists after Judgement Day. Especially when Christ state it is done in verse 6.

That's what I call in context.

I'll show you what I call context. Let's look at the entire passage from verse 4 on. We know this is Christ revelation to us that John is writing. John has just described Judgement Day in chapter 20. We then proceed to the New Heavens and Earth.


Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Revelation 21:5 "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."

Christ is bringing us back to John.

Revelation 21:6 "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

He states it is done. So we can't tie verse 8 to verse 4. He is back to John and states he who is thirsty He will give of the water of fountain of life freely

Revelation 21:7 "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Again, these verses go together. You can't just post verse 8 and imply anything from verse 4. Especially when Christ states it is done" in verse 6. He ended that part of his Revelation with verses 4-6. And he ends on that note -former things passed away and all things new, period. He states after that -it's done. And he brings us to John and his writing. When he tells us once again what will happen to the overcomers and the ones that don't overcome.

Then one of the seven angels carries John away in the spirit to show him the bride, new Jerusalem etc.

The Bible needs to be read chapter by chapter and verse by verse so we don't lose context of anything. We read every other book that way and the Bible is no different.

 

[Der Alte]

This is what I mean by not taking the Bible as a whole. Even one verse that you have skipped makes a huge difference. Verse 8 goes directly with the context presented in verse 7. Christ is reiterating what will happen at Judgement Day in both those verses to the two different kinds of people.

Revelation 21:7 "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son

Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Again, these two verses go together. He's stating very simply that he that overcomes wil inherit all things but the others will not. He's talking future in those verses - "shall inherit", "shall have their part..."

Verse 8 is not written at all in that it still exists after Judgement Day. Especially when Christ state it is done in verse 6.



I'll show you what I call context. Let's look at the entire passage from verse 4 on. We know this is Christ revelation to us that John is writing. John has just described Judgement Day in chapter 20. We then proceed to the New Heavens and Earth.


Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Revelation 21:5 "And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful."

Christ is bringing us back to John.

Revelation 21:6 "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely."

He states it is done. So we can't tie verse 8 to verse 4. He is back to John and states he who is thirsty He will give of the water of fountain of life freely

Revelation 21:7 "He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

Revelation 21:8 "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Again, these verses go together. You can't just post verse 8 and imply anything from verse 4. Especially when Christ states it is done" in verse 6. He ended that part of his Revelation with verses 4-6. And he ends on that note -former things passed away and all things new, period. He states after that -it's done. And he brings us to John and his writing. When he tells us once again what will happen to the overcomers and the ones that don't overcome.

Then one of the seven angels carries John away in the spirit to show him the bride, new Jerusalem etc.

The Bible needs to be read chapter by chapter and verse by verse so we don't lose context of anything. We read every other book that way and the Bible is no different.

I never said nor implied that vs. 7 and 8 did not go together. You lecture me about my posts but you forget this, "The LOF is a thing. And it will be a former thing. Why else would Christ state [vs.4] there would be no more pain as well as death?? Because the former things, including the LOF will have passed away."
The Bible doesn't jump back and forth all over the place. After vs. 4 the LOF did not pass away. No first century Christian would have understood Rev, the way you are misrepresenting it.

 

[JulieB67]

you are misrepresenting it.

I guess we'll see in the end who is misrepresenting it.

 

[Der Alte]

I guess we'll see in the end who is misrepresenting it.

We can see now. Unlike modern Christians, the first century former pagan Christians in the 7 cities to whom Rev. is addressed did not have multiple electronic devices with complete Bibles on them. Very, very few could afford to even have a copy of Rev. they would have to rely on what they heard. What they heard was vs. 4 "there shall be no more death, ... for the former things are passed away." Then vs. 8 "But the [8 groups of sinners] shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

 

[Emun]

To the passage in Revelation that talks about eternal torment. It can mean that the punishment of being dead forever is a torment. So it doesn't have to be literal, it can be metaphorical. I repeat, the Bible makes it clear from the beginning that hell is nothing other than eternal death.

 

[RDKirk]

To the passage in Revelation that talks about eternal torment. It can mean that the punishment of being dead forever is a torment. So it doesn't have to be literal, it can be metaphorical. I repeat, the Bible makes it clear from the beginning that hell is nothing other than eternal death.

Or eternal dying.

 

[Der Alte]

To the passage in Revelation that talks about eternal torment. It can mean that the punishment of being dead forever is a torment. So it doesn't have to be literal, it can be metaphorical. I repeat, the Bible makes it clear from the beginning that hell is nothing other than eternal death.

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

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left vs. 41] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[EOB p. 96]​

…..Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
…..Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:

The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The New Testament (The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible)

archive.org

…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.[EOB p. 518]​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18.
…..Some badly informed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.”
Sorry, that is impossible, both “prune” and “correction” are verbs. “Kolasis” is a noun. One cannot translate a noun as a verb.
Also according to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
The word “correction” occurs one time in the NT 2 Timothy 3:16 ἐπανόρθωσις/epanorthosis. It looks nothing like kolasis.
…..It is acknowledged that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the native Greek speaking EOB scholars, supported by 2000 years +/- of uninterrupted Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete Greek words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete English words which occur in e.g. the 1611 KJV and can define them correctly.

 

[Emun]

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

How does this quote from Justin confirm your understanding of hell? This quote does not contradict annihilation at all. Those who are thrown into the lake of fire will be conscious of their punishment.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left vs. 41] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”[EOB p. 96]

As I said, the eternal punishment is eternal death. What is the opposite of eternal life? Eternal death. If hell is as you imagine it, then they also live eternally, which contradicts the scripture that says hell is death.

I have no problem with the word torment in relation to hell. Not to exist, so to speak, is the torment for them. That is metaphorical.

 

[Der Alte]

How does this quote from Justin confirm your understanding of hell? This quote does not contradict annihilation at all. Those who are thrown into the lake of fire will be conscious of their punishment.
As I said, the eternal punishment is eternal death. What is the opposite of eternal life? Eternal death. If hell is as you imagine it, then they also live eternally, which contradicts the scripture that says hell is death.
I have no problem with the word torment in relation to hell. Not to exist, so to speak, is the torment for them. That is metaphorical.

Evidently you did not understand my post. The quote from Justin shows that "eternal punishment" was not understood as "eternal death." It is not punishment unless the receiver is conscious of the punishment. Jesus said "These [on the left] go away into eternal punishment." His audience would not have understood that as death.

 

[Emun]

Evidently you did not understand my post. The quote from Justin shows that "eternal punishment" was not understood as "eternal death." It is not punishment unless the receiver is conscious of the punishment. Jesus said "These [on the left] go away into eternal punishment." His audience would not have understood that as death.

This is a matter of interpretation. You assume that the consciousness of punishment implies that one would feel pain, I say that the consciousness of punishment means that people will know that they will be devoured by death.

I guess you think death is not a punishment. If that is so, then you are mistaken. Death is very often described in the Bible as a punishment. Death is the consequence of sin (Romans 6:23).

 

[Der Alte]

This is a matter of interpretation. You assume that the consciousness of punishment implies that one would feel pain, I say that the consciousness of punishment means that people will know that they will be devoured by death.
I guess you think death is not a punishment. If that is so, then you are mistaken. Death is very often described in the Bible as a punishment. Death is the consequence of sin (Romans 6:23).

I am not talking about punishment per se. I am talking about what Jesus said in Matthew 25:46 "these [on the left] go away into eternal punishment." Some folks try to make that mean "eternal death." But Jesus is quoted as saying death 17 times. When He meant death, He said death. Also, Jesus' immediate audience would not have understood Jesus to be saying "eternal death."

 

[Lazarus Short]

To the passage in Revelation that talks about eternal torment. It can mean that the punishment of being dead forever is a torment. So it doesn't have to be literal, it can be metaphorical. I repeat, the Bible makes it clear from the beginning that hell is nothing other than eternal death.

Tell us, where is the torment in being dead forever?

 

[Saint Steven]

A lot of that has to do with the insistence that it absolutely isn't a parable. Those insisting it isn't and can't be, seem to place just as much importance on whether it's a parable or not.

If it is a parable, it might not have anything to do with hell. But when it's decided it must be an account of something that actually happened, then it's taken at face value, rather than needing to be deciphered.

I'm jumping in late here, but... I like to ask, if what Jesus inferred about the afterlife in the STORY of Lazarus and the Rich Man was false, why would Jesus deliver such a misleading example of it?

I've read and heard those who have treated as a parable and brought out aspects about it that most people never see.

That's one of the main reasons, for me anyway, to reject the "parable" claim. The alternative is useless. - LOL

One of many is Lazarus is the Greek version of Eliazer. Before Issac was born, Eliazer of Damascus (who might have been a Gentile) was Abraham's heir. He was set to inherit everything that belonged to Abraham. So there's a possible huge significance to Lazarus/Eliazer and Abraham being together in this story that most are completely oblivious to. And that's just one of many aspects that have been uncovered when viewing it as a prophetic parable.

Wow. Very interesting and informative. Thanks.

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you see what I mean now? The whole purpose of claiming that it is a parable is to remove the evidence that the rich man was not allowed to cross over after he was repentant. That’s exactly what I was talking about and by this post hopefully you can see that I was correct that this was the intention of dismissing the story as being a parable.

All you need to cross a chasm is a bridge. We do it all the time.

 

[ozso]

All you need to cross a chasm is a bridge. We do it all the time.

You mean like this?

 

[ozso]

I'm jumping in late here, but... I like to ask, if what Jesus inferred about the afterlife in the STORY of Lazarus and the Rich Man was false, why would Jesus deliver such a misleading example of it?

In my opinion it's a matter of what it's conveying. Are the streets of heaven really made of gold and are the gates really carved out of a single pear?

That's one of the main reasons, for me anyway, to reject the "parable" claim. The alternative is useless. - LOL

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[JulieB67]

When He meant death, He said death

And yet here you are contradicting yourself. He calls the LOF the second death but you don't think he meant death.

 

[ozso]

And yet here you are contradicting yourself. He calls the LOF the second death but you don't think he meant death.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

However if everyone who receives eternal punishment is alive to experience it, then everyone already has eternal life. Quite the conundrum.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't understand what you mean.

I landed pretty hard on that one. I should have said, "The alternative is useless TO ME." (alternative interpretations of the Rich Man and Lazarus)
What were the valuable aspects that you saw in the alternative views?

I've read and heard those who have treated as a parable and brought out aspects about it that most people never see.

@Saint Steven wrote:
That's one of the main reasons, for me anyway, to reject the "parable" claim. The alternative is useless. - LOL