Where is hell in a round earth?

[Butch5]

Whether you said anything about the Jews or not, is not relevant. What the Jews, at the time of Jesus, believed about hell is very relevant to this discussion. As I have shown from the Jewish Encyclopedia and the Talmud, before and during the time of Jesus, many Jews believed in "a place ... where the wicked are tormented for eternity" and they called it both sheol/hades and Gehinnom. Please explain to me how you think you know that the Jews misinterpreted their own Hebrew scriptures? The possible existence of an opposing view does not disprove the "hell" view.
Many Jews believed "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity,"Jewish Encyclopedia. When Jesus taught the Jews that some would be "cast into hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die." would the Jews understand that their view was wrong?

Again, it doesn't matter what "some" Jews may have believed. A lot of Christians believe they will go to Heaven when they die, that doesn't make it so. Show me anything in the Bible that teaches of a place in the earth where the wicked will be tormented forever.

So there must be two places of fiery torment where people are sent after death?
In the OT the Hebrew word "sheol" is translated "Hades" in the LXX. It appears to be a place of fire and a parent disciplining their child can save the child from sheol/hades.

Deuteronomy 32:22
(22) For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell [sheol], and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
Proverbs 23:14
(14) Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.[sheol]​

No, there aren't two places of fire, there is one, Gehenna. The passage you quoted from Deuteronomy is a metaphor for God's anger. Sheol or Hades is the grave, not a place of torment. This passage is what Jesus is referencing in Luke 16 when He said the rich man was in torment in Hades. There are only two passages of Scripture that speak of fire in Hades, this one in Deuteronomy and the one in Luke 16.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It wasn't Saul. Saul was dead, necromancy was against God and was forbidden, Saul was judged for what he did. That was bringing up a demon. The dead know not anything--and nobody can change that meaning however much they mangle and twist the word dead. Satan impersonates --that is what he has done from the beginning. He is a liar and the father of it.

Um, I'm pretty sure it was King Saul who did it.

And Saul said to his servants: Seek me a woman that hath a divining spirit, and I will go to her, and inquire by her. And his servants said to him: There is a woman that hath a divining spirit at Endor.

Then he disguised himself: and put on other clothes, and he went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night, and he said to her: Divine to me by thy divining spirit, and bring me up him whom I shall tell thee.
- 1 Samuel 28:7-8 (DRA)

As to the spirit's identity...

And Samuel said: Why askest thou me, seeing the Lord has departed from thee, and is gone over to thy rival:

For the Lord will do to thee as he spoke by me, and he will rend thy kingdom out of thy hand, and will give it to thy neighbour David:

Because thou didst not obey the voice of the Lord, neither didst thou execute the wrath of his indignation upon Amalec. Therefore hath the Lord done to thee what thou sufferest this day.
- 1 Samuel 28:16-18 (DRA)

So the person identified himself as Samuel. King Saul understood him to Samuel. Sacred Scriptures identifies this person as Samuel. So either it really was Samuel or else the Holy Spirit is lying to us via the scriptures. If this person wasn't actual Samuel, why wouldn't the scriptures say so?

Mind you, I'm not advocating using mediums to have conversations with the dead. In fact, what I advocate is NOT doing that. You correctly said that is forbidden.

Having said that though, I see nothing in the passage to indicate that King Saul spoke to a demon.

 

[droptozro]

There is "internet research" and then there is real research.

Agreed, my research initially is not of the internet. Its of the historians who recorded of or around the time of 70AD like Josephus and Eusebius. Those two or scholars who have studied those two affirmed my suspicions I had for years about what "hell" really was when they spoke of Jerusalem being attacked, sieged and invaded from the north pushing the remnants of survivors and rebels into the southern wall. They affirm that they were throwing cadavers over that wall.

I mentioned "dump" once, and you read into it that it meant garbage dump as a whole that was burning for years. It may or may not have been. The texts I gave clearly show it was a place of burning and worms decaying corpses, dead bodies. It was clearly a dump of some sort that was burning unless you wish to explain Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9 to me. Then Matthew 24 and Luke 21 as a whole can be read to see the same picture in the siege of Jerusalem. I read through your quotes of the "garbage dump myth" from the article which it was pulled from online showed it is a debated possibility to actually be one, not a sure myth.

 

[mmksparbud]

Um, I'm pretty sure it was King Saul who did it.

As to the spirit's identity...

So the person identified himself as Samuel. King Saul understood him to Samuel. Sacred Scriptures identifies this person as Samuel. So either it really was Samuel or else the Holy Spirit is lying to us via the scriptures. If this person wasn't actual Samuel, why wouldn't the scriptures say so?

Mind you, I'm not advocating using mediums to have conversations with the dead. In fact, what I advocate is NOT doing that. You correctly said that is forbidden.

Having said that though, I see nothing in the passage to indicate that King Saul spoke to a demon.

Oops!--I meant it wasn't Samuel!

 

[thecolorsblend]

it wasn't Samuel!

Except it was Samuel.

 

[mmksparbud]

Um, I'm pretty sure it was King Saul who did it.

As to the spirit's identity...

So the person identified himself as Samuel. King Saul understood him to Samuel. Sacred Scriptures identifies this person as Samuel. So either it really was Samuel or else the Holy Spirit is lying to us via the scriptures. If this person wasn't actual Samuel, why wouldn't the scriptures say so?

Mind you, I'm not advocating using mediums to have conversations with the dead. In fact, what I advocate is NOT doing that. You correctly said that is forbidden.

Having said that though, I see nothing in the passage to indicate that King Saul spoke to a demon.

1Sa 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

So you think Samuel was a god?

 

[thecolorsblend]

1Sa 28:13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

So you think Samuel was a god?

And yet the person to whom King Saul actually spoke was identified by the scriptures as Samuel. Don't you think there would be a note in there saying "The demon pretended to be Samuel and said to King Saul..."

And speaking of King Saul, if this character was a demon, you'd think he'd lie to King Saul and tell him everything will be okay, just keep on doing what he's been doing, it's all under control? Because it looks like what Samuel said came to pass more or less how Samuel said it would come to pass.

So either that "demon" was prophesying on God's behalf (which would be another thing the scriptures didn't mention) or maybe, just maybe, that really was Samuel that King Saul spoke to.

 

[Der Alte]

Are you familiar with the concept of what God says is??? Read Genesis 1. And God said......and it was so. That's how it works, He commands, and it stands fast. And when He said that if they ate of the tree they would die----it was so. If He had said, you will live forever in hell in torment, then it would be so---He didn't. Parables have nothing to do with it. What He says is.

How convenient, when scripture contradicts one's assumptions/presuppositions just ignore it, blow it off as a parable.

 

[mmksparbud]

1Sa 28:14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

And you think that Samuel, now in heaven with God, is still an old man covered with a mantel?? So he's a god, but an old man?

 

[mmksparbud]

How convenient, when scripture contradicts one's assumptions/presuppositions just ignore it, blow it off as a parable.

This was not said to the disciples, and Jesus only spoke in parables to the people.

Mat_13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

 

[thecolorsblend]

1Sa 28:14 And he said unto her, What form is he of? And she said, An old man cometh up; and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself.

And you think that Samuel, now in heaven with God, is still an old man covered with a mantel?? So he's a god, but an old man?

Believe whatever you want, dude. No skin off my nose.

 

[mmksparbud]

Believe whatever you want, dude. No skin off my nose.

Thanks, and that's dudette!

 

[thecolorsblend]

Thanks, and that's dudette!

I'll try to remember that, man.

 

[Der Alte]

This was not said to the disciples, and Jesus only spoke in parables to the people.
Mat_13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

As I said one can make scripture say almost anything they want it to by selectively quoting verses out-of-context. Why are you quoting Matthew when I quoted Luke 16:19-32? And the passage I quoted was directed to Jesus' disciples.

Luke 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! ​

 

[mmksparbud]

As I said one can make scripture say almost anything they want it to by selectively quoting verses out-of-context. Why are you quoting Matthew when I quoted Luke 16:19-32? And the passage I quoted was directed to Jesus' disciples.

Luke 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! ​

Jesus was speaking of Lazarus to the Pharisees, not the disciples.
And he spoke of divorce and remarriage, also to them and then He spoke the parable of Lazarus to them.
After he finished the parable then he spoke to the disciples.

Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Luk 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!



Had to Edit, I clicked reply before I was done.

 

[Der Alte]

Agreed, my research initially is not of the internet. Its of the historians who recorded of or around the time of 70AD like Josephus and Eusebius.

Those two or scholars who have studied those two affirmed my suspicions I had for years about what "hell" really was when they spoke of Jerusalem being attacked, sieged and invaded from the north[/QUOTE}

pushing the remnants of survivors and rebels into the southern wall. They affirm that they were throwing cadavers over that wall.

You may have done some research at some time but the post I responded to you quoted an email that is why I said "There is "internet research" then there is real research. Whatever Josephus and Eusebius may have written about the siege of Jerusalem is irrelevant. That was 40 years after the time of Jesus. Neither the OT nor Jesus could have been talking about the siege of Jerusalem.

I mentioned "dump" once, and you read into it that it meant garbage dump as a whole that was burning for years. It may or may not have been.

The texts I gave clearly show it was a place of burning and worms decaying corpses, dead bodies.

You gave no texts, you quoted from an email.

It was clearly a dump of some sort that was burning unless you wish to explain Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9 to me. Then Matthew 24 and Luke 21 as a whole can be read to see the same picture in the siege of Jerusalem.

I read through your quotes of the "garbage dump myth" from the article which it was pulled from online showed it is a debated possibility to actually be one, not a sure myth.

You are mistaken, nothing I quoted said the "garbage dump myth" was "debated."

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus was speaking of Lazarus to the Pharisees, not the disciples.
And he spoke of divorce and remarriage, also to them and then He spoke the parable of Lazarus to them.
After he finished the parable then he spoke to the disciples.

Wrong!

Luke 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.​

A few verses later vs. 14 the Pharisees overheard Jesus talking to His disciples. And 17:1 begins as 16 does, Jesus still addressing His disciples. Odd that Jesus did not introduce the story of Lazarus and the rich man as a parable and did not explain it to His disciples.

Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! ​

Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

 

[mmksparbud]

Wrong!

Luke 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.​

A few verses later vs. 14 the Pharisees overheard Jesus talking to His disciples. And 17:1 begins as 16 does, Jesus still addressing His disciples. Odd that Jesus did not introduce the story of Lazarus and the rich man as a parable and did not explain it to His disciples.

Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! ​

good grief--I posted the whole passage and you still can't follow it?!!!

Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye

He doesn't address the disciples again until after the parable,. it is very clear.
Luk 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples,

 

[droptozro]

You may have done some research at some time but the post I responded to you quoted an email that is why I said "There is "internet research" then there is real research. Whatever Josephus and Eusebius may have written about the siege of Jerusalem is irrelevant. That was 40 years after the time of Jesus. Neither the OT nor Jesus could have been talking about the siege of Jerusalem.

"you quoted an email"

I have no clue what you're talking about. I quoted no emails, I wrote that from my own studies and personal self. I said I CAME here from my email cause I saw this thread come across in my email even though I'm never on this site and couldn't resist adding to the discussion. I suggest reading my original post. *edit* here. Reading my original post to give you some clarity. When I said "...saw *THIS* come in my email..." THIS refers to the thread/title/subject, not to what follows.

And what they wrote is irrelevant?... that's quite hilarious to claim they're not talking about the siege of Jerusalem in Matt 24 or that Josephus' and Eusebius' history is irrelevant. I'm going to take that as a comment of ignorance, hopefully not willful ignorance. I don't have the time to go grab my books and start lambasting all the historical evidence into here that shows from their writings and those who've studied them that they were in fact talking about the siege and destruction of Jerusalem around 70AD. Let alone Jesus' words.

You gave no texts, you quoted from an email.

I'm confused how you can say that when my post is still unedited and still has quotes from Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9. Then I quoted it again and you still stated it. Are you reading anything? I'm not even sure we're talking about the same subject. This is a thread about a flat world/earth and "hell," right?

You are mistaken, nothing I quoted said the "garbage dump myth" was "debated."

I never said you did, I said I looked up claims that quotes other scholars from an article that quotes the same authors and THEY said it was still debatable. There's some serious miscommunication going on here.

 

[Imagican]

Yes, there is that. The Bible tells us that this Earth is going to be completely destroyed and a 'new Earth' will take it's place.

Blessings,

MEC