What hell is like.

Michael Mc · Feb 27, 2004

Der Alter said:
I have already addressed John 3:13. You have chosen to ignore it. The word translated “ascended” is in the active voice, in Greek. That means the subject, i.e. “no man,” acting though his own efforts or will, ascended into heaven. The exception is “He” who, acting though his own efforts or will, first descended into heaven. This verse does not say that no man ever ascended into heaven.

Abraham went to Heaven then, as the parable of the rich man and lazarus states. Where does it say in the Bible that Abraham ascended to heaven (not of his own effort)? You address one verse, then make some comments towards my views (without scripture) and leave it at that.

“Jesus is the the fristfruit, or first to be roused from the dead. Not even David had been roused, no not anyone:” Another out-of-context “proof text,” and another, blinders on, follow the leader, misinterpretation of the Bible. Since Jesus raised at least three people from the dead, Lazarus, the widow’s son, and the Synagogue ruler’s daughter, and prophets in the O.T. raised the dead, this verse must have a deeper spiritual meaning. But to understand this would require actually reading the Bible, the entire Bible, and not just a handful of out-of-context, “proof texts,” which you evidently have not done.

Jesus was Jewish and His disciples, including Paul, were Jewish so let’s look at how they understood terms such as “first born” and “first fruits.” Here God is speaking to Moses and says, “Israel is my first born son.” Adam was called God’s son. Israel was not the first born man that God chose. Neither was Israel, the first born son, within his own family. Esau was physically the first born and Jacob, Israel, cheated him out of his blessing.

Exo 4:22 And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

Explain to me the deeper spiritual truth. It is easy to tell me that my views are wrong, without explianing how you are right. Expand a bit on your thoughts here Der Alter. What did God mean when He said Israel is His first born son?

I will address the other points later as I have time. Before we proceed however, I would prefer that you actually read your Bible, instead of throwing isolated out-of-context “proof texts” at me. I have heard them all before and they have all been addressed, somewhere, by someone. If you would get outside your group, whatever that is, you would know that.

I'm sorry if I am wasting your time asking questions that have already been addressed, somewhere, by someone. I guess you've proved eternal torment then, all my questions have been addressed, and I need to read the bible. K, then, oh wait, I have read the bible and nope hell ain't in there. So now that I've read the bible can we proceed or would you prefer some more [Edited by a moderator] about beliefs that differ from yours. You respond as if it is I who has to own up to your way of thinking. Your responses have brought out the worst in me, if you are not able to step down from your high horse then this discussion will be over. You can chalk another victory for eternal torment, [Edited by a moderator] I've been unable to have a civilized discussion with.

Looking forward to a more civil discussion,

Michael Mc · Feb 27, 2004

For anyone else,

Gehenna is the word used by our Lord Jesus as He taught here on earth. What did the Jews of His time understand His teaching on hell to be?

http://www.gospelthemes.com/hell.htm

In this paper Samuel G. Dawson asserts that hell was an event to occur to the Israel for their evil ways. A judgment upon the people. John the Baptist came warning of the day, as was told in Mal 3:1-5, and Mal 4: 1-6. Mr. Dawson goes on to list the 12 times gehenna was used by Jesus in an attempt to define hell as Jesus taught it. He concludes that hell is Unquenchable fire (Mk. 9.43) upon his generation (Mt. 23.36) in his generation.

Mr. Dawson summerizes as thus:
From these twelve gehenna passages, we learn that hell was an imminent fiery judgment coming on the Jews in the generation in which Jesus was crucified. It was unquenchable fire on that generation in that generation.It was a national judgment against the Jews. None of these hell passages say that anyone of our day can go to hell. None of them associate hell with Satan. None of them say that Satan's domain is hell.

The Jews of His time would have understood Jesus as speaking of a imminent judgment that would come upon the nation if it did not repent. As it had happened in the Old Testament. Ezk. 20.47-48 speaks of national judgment in the form of unquenchable fire, also Amos 5.5-6, Isa. 66.15-16, 24, Jer. 21.10-12.

Mr. Dawson then reports: Thus, when Jesus and John the Baptist issued their warnings of the impending destruction of Jerusalem, they used language which the Old Testament had only used of national destruction.

Here is the link again I hope that some would read it and reply with thier thoughts on it. http://www.gospelthemes.com/hell.htm

Der Alte · Feb 28, 2004

Michael Mc said:
Looking forward to a more civil discussion,

Der Alte · Feb 28, 2004

Michael Mc said:
For anyone else,

Gehenna is the word used by our Lord Jesus as He taught here on earth. What did the Jews of His time understand His teaching on hell to be?

In this paper Samuel G. Dawson asserts that hell was an event to occur to the Israel for their evil ways. A judgment upon the people. John the Baptist came warning of the day, as was told in Mal 3:1-5, and Mal 4: 1-6. Mr. Dawson goes on to list the 12 times gehenna was used by Jesus in an attempt to define hell as Jesus taught it. He concludes that hell is Unquenchable fire (Mk. 9.43) upon his generation (Mt. 23.36) in his generation.[ . . .]

I'm sure you think this article answers all the questions and puts the matter to rest. If you will check the links in the post above you will find where I quoted definitions from the BDB Hebrew lexicon, and articles from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Dawson does not cite one single definition or Hebrew source whatsoever. More evidence that you evidently are not interested in discussion, civil or otherwise, at this link I posted the article on Gehenna from the Jewish Encyclopedia. You have not addressed the article and posting a link does not address any of the specific points in the article.

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1815653&postcount=48

Michael Mc · Feb 28, 2004

Hey Der Alter, just wanted to take the time now to apologize for my last post. I shouldn't have lashed out as I did, and I'm sorry.

I do beleive that I have addressed your posts from the Jewish encylopedia, when I responded that I didn't see where anyone was burned in hades, sheol. I thought that was the central issue here, that people burn when they are in hades or sheol, am I right? I thought your belief was that people who die and go to sheol are burning there. Is that fair to say? Would that be a correct assumtion of your beliefs on this issue of hades and sheol. If so, then there is no implication in the post from the Jewish encyclopedia that that is the case.

As for my last post, I wonder if your able to respond to any of the scriptural proofs that are mentioned in the paper? How God used terms like unquenchable fire in relation to the impending national judgments upon Isreal.

Now I'll go back to read your post on Gehenna.

Michael Mc · Feb 28, 2004

o.k the post from the jewish encyclopedia says that gehenna is where the fire is. That is true. I did notice many references to non biblical sources, unless anyone includes the apocrypha as biblical. For the most part it refers to gehenna as place of burning. This is true. Mr. Dawsons paper seems to show that this burning would have been understood as a national judgment from God. I don't see how the post from the jewish encyclopedia is more reliable or more enlightening than the scriptural proofs provided by Mr. Dawsons paper.

Any thoughts anyone?

Der Alte · Feb 29, 2004

MichaelMc said:
Hey Der Alter, just wanted to take the time now to apologize for my last post. I shouldn't have lashed out as I did, and I'm sorry.

Thank you. And I apologize to you for my less than kind remarks.

I do beleive that I have addressed your posts from the Jewish encylopedia, when I responded that I didn't see where anyone was burned in hades, sheol. I thought that was the central issue here, that people burn when they are in hades or sheol, am I right? I thought your belief was that people who die and go to sheol are burning there. Is that fair to say? Would that be a correct assumtion of your beliefs on this issue of hades and sheol. If so, then there is no implication in the post from the Jewish encyclopedia that that is the case.

May I ask that you go back and read my response to that reply? In the specific post I was responding to you did not mention anything about burning and the JE link clearly addressed the specific post I responded to.

As for burning in hades, Jesus said the fires of hades, that’s good enough for me.

Dawson said:
Does the passage teach things we don't believe about an unending fiery hell, but which fit national judgment? If the passage does not say what gehenna is, does it fit a national judgment? In this first passage, Jesus didn't say what gehenna is, but his teaching was at least consistent with the national judgment announced by Malachi and John the Baptist. The closest fire in the context is Mt. 3.10-12, where John announced imminent fiery judgment on the nation of Israel.

Mt. 5.29-30

The next passage is Mt. 5.29-30, where Jesus used gehenna twice when he said:

And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell. And if thy right hand causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not thy whole body go into hell.
Jesus didn't define hell here. However, in our traditional idea of hell, unending fire after the end of time, we normally don't think of anyone having their physical limbs at that time. This is not an argument, but just the realization that we don't think in terms of some people being in heaven with missing eyes and limbs, and some in hell with all of theirs. However, these words do fit a national judgment. It would be better to go into the kingdom of the Messiah missing some members, than to go into an imminent national judgment of unquenchable fire with all their members. This was equivalent to John's demand that his Jewish audience bring forth fruits worthy of repentance or receive imminent unquenchable fire. The whole body of a Jew could be cast into the fiery judgment of which John spoke.

This is quoted from the Dawson link. As I skimmed down thru it, about ½ down I saw this. Note it begins with a presumption, “things we don’t believe.” followed by another presumption “national judgment.,” and there is some meaningless meandering about missing limbs. And the knowledgeable reader will note that Dawson has carefully avoided the parallel account in Mark.

At first glance Dawson’s argument seems plausible until we take note that Jesus was not talking to national leaders or the religious elite, who could affect national Israel. Jesus was talking to His disciples, individual Jews, about their personal relationship with God. If Jesus had intended to say “national judgment” why didn’t He say that? Jesus openly confronted the Jewish leaders, He quoted scriptures when required, and obviously had no need to speak in vague allusions to OT prophecies, if that is what they were.

Here is an observation I made about the Mark passage, in an earlier post and a link to that post. The post must be very hard to find because it has not been replied to. Since the question has been asked about considering the scriptural evidence, should we not consider all the relevant scriptural evidence?

In this passage Jesus repeated a total of eleven (11) warnings. Hell, three times; unquenchable fire, five times; and their worm that does not die, three times. Jesus must be saying something very serious to give eleven warnings.

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1801037&postcount=30

Once again I say, I have posted several posts on this thread, links above, which have not been addressed and nothing from Dawson addresses my specific posts. I’m still waiting for that discussion. A discussion is not a link to a website! This post is more what is considered a discussion. I have quoted something, from the website, and have addressed the conclusions, false in this case, drawn from selectively quoted scriptures. Dawson makes the same error that I have repeatedly pointed out in this and other threads. He ignores the scriptures which do not support his presuppositions, e.g. Mark 9:43-50.

Der Alte · Feb 29, 2004

Michael Mc said:
o.k the post from the jewish encyclopedia says that gehenna is where the fire is. That is true. I did notice many references to non biblical sources, unless anyone includes the apocrypha as biblical. For the most part it refers to gehenna as place of burning. This is true. Mr. Dawsons paper seems to show that this burning would have been understood as a national judgment from God. I don't see how the post from the jewish encyclopedia is more reliable or more enlightening than the scriptural proofs provided by Mr. Dawsons paper.

Any thoughts anyone?

Here are quotes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I have highlighted some of the scripture citations to assist you to see them. Perhaps your monitor was a little dusty which hindered your vision. In addition to the scriptures there are citations of the Talmud, not Apocrypha. The Talmud is commentary on, and interpretation of, the Hebrew scriptures, by Hebrew speaking, Jewish Bible scholars.

Also you may note that "national judgement" is not mentioned in any of the articles, Sheol, Gehenna, and Ge-Hinnom. Strange that the ancient Jews did not interpret those passages as "national judgement," and Dawson did.

Now perhaps you can see why these articles are more reliable and enlightening than Dawson's selectively quoted "proof texts."

Jewish Encyclopedia-Gehenna

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 (Sotah 22a); according to Gen. R. ix. 9, the words "very good" in Gen. i. 31 refer to hell; hence the latter must have been created on the sixth day.

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).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=115&letter=G

Ge-hinnom

Name of the valley to the south and south-west of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, xviii. 16; Neh. xi. 30; II Kings xxiii. 10; II Chron. xxxiii. 6; Jer. vii. 31 et seq., xix. 2, xxxii. 35). Its modern name is "Wadi al-Rababah." The southwestern gate of the city, overlooking the valley, came to be known as "the gate of the valley." The valley was notorious for the worship of Moloch carried on there (comp. Jer. ii. 23). According to Jer. vii. 31 et seq., xix. 6 et seq., it was to be turned into a place of burial; hence "the accursed valley Ge-hinnom" ("Gehenna" in the N. T.) came to be synonymous with a place of punishment, and thus with hell (comp. Isa. Lxvi. 24; Enoch, xxvi. et seq.; and the rabbinical Hebrew equivalent).

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=116&letter=G

What hell is like.

Michael Mc

Active Member

More options

Michael Mc

Active Member

More options

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

More options

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

More options

Michael Mc

Active Member

More options

Michael Mc

Active Member

More options

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

More options

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

More options

Similar threads

What hell is like.

Active Member

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Active Member

Active Member

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency