Who Goes To Hell?

[Saint Steven]

Yep.... the narrow way is not as traveled as the broad way...

Your point?

You claimed that there is no way to estimate the percentage of the "lost".
What I call countless billions. My rough calculations below. The "lost" = over 66% (way over)

You are accusing God of creating countless billions with the sole purpose of incinerating the VAST majority. Explain why that plan makes sense.

Saint Steven said: ↑
And it is possible to calculate in rough figures. World population figures (7.5 billion) and world Christianity figures (2.4 billion) are readily available. Not even one third of the world population is professing Christianity. And we could probably agree that the 2.4 billions is generous. Including those who are Christian politically as well as nominal Christians that have no relationship with Christ. Add to these numbers all those who have lived and died since Christ and you have the countless billions I often refer to.

 

[JacksBratt]

Seriously? Wow.

Could Christ have saved us if He had of sinned?

Why is there even the need for God to send His only begotten son?

Why does the dept for our sins need to be paid..

Why can't God just make it all nice and fuzzy and nice?

Could the bible be true if Christ decided to come down and change the whole plan by preaching again, against the present prophecy?

Jesus created all things of this universe.. At the same time there are laws that govern this universe in regards to righteous and unrighteous.. God made these laws and He is still bound to them by the simple fact that if He changes them.. then He lied...

God is just and righteous... He never changes...

 

[JacksBratt]

You claimed that there is no way to estimate the percentage of the "lost".
What I call countless billions. My rough calculations below. The "lost" = over 66% (way over)

You are accusing God of creating countless billions with the sole purpose of incinerating the VAST majority. Explain why that plan makes sense.

Saint Steven said: ↑
And it is possible to calculate in rough figures. World population figures (7.5 billion) and world Christianity figures (2.4 billion) are readily available. Not even one third of the world population is professing Christianity. And we could probably agree that the 2.4 billions is generous. Including those who are Christian politically as well as nominal Christians that have no relationship with Christ. Add to these numbers all those who have lived and died since Christ and you have the countless billions I often refer to.

God's plan, God's purpose, God's intent.... was that none be lost..

But.. people are people... People make their own choices..

Do you think that God wanted people to deny Christ?

 

[Saint Steven]

Until then, God tolerates the presence of sin in order to accomplish his purposes with mankind. Thank goodness, because if God truly could not be in the presence of sin, none of us would be here!

Now you say, "if God truly could not be in the presence of sin" ???
So God can be in the presence of sin. (and vice versa)

 

[Saint Steven]

Why is there even the need for God to send His only begotten son?

We both understand that as part of the plan of salvation.

All three doctrinal views of the final judgment include that as part.
Universal Restoration does not preclude the atonement, it makes the BEST use of it.
The atonement wasn't ONLY for our sins.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

[Saint Steven]

God's plan, God's purpose, God's intent.... was that none be lost..

You are saying he failed then?
Failed plan? Failed purpose? Failed intent? Wow.

 

[Saint Steven]

Do you think that God wanted people to deny Christ?

I would say that he both expected and anticipated it.
Do you think he was surprised and dismayed by that?
Seems more like, "God in the hands of angry sinners." to me.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's about eternity.....

Here:

Can God Be in the Presence of Sin? – #3 Post of 2010

The Bible teaches that God is opposed to sin and evil, that he is holy and righteous. We know that eventually he will quarantine evil from good when he creates the New Heaven and Earth (Rev. 21 ). At that time, God will physically separate those who love him from those who don’t. Those who love him will no longer be in the presence of sin from that point forward.


Until then, God tolerates the presence of sin in order to accomplish his purposes with mankind. Thank goodness, because if God truly could not be in the presence of sin, none of us would be here!

The unholy can not be in the Prescence of God, rather.
That's why Adam, Eve and the serpent were kicked out of Eden.
God is a consuming Fire, in which only Gold can survive.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No one WANTS to go to hell. (assuming there is one)
That is a doctrine from the STATE church, intended to blame the victim for what the STATE church claims God has planned for his own creation. Thus inferring that God has failed to save his own creation due to poor planning.

Someone might claim they would prefer to go to hell, rather than associate with church folks. (can't say I blame them) But it is said for shock value rather than a will to actually consign themselves to eternal conscious torment with no hope of escape. The same people do everything they can to acquire comfort in this world. That's what they REALLY want. IMHO

I never said anything about eternal conscious torment with no hope to escape.

But the general position of the Church has been that "going" to hell isn't about God sending anyone to hell, but rather hell being born out of choice.

I read a kind of parable once that I've always enjoyed.

There was once a man who received a vision of heaven and hell. The man was taken to a great big banquet hall, with great big tables, a feast set upon the tables, and around the tables seated many people. Enough food to feed everyone several times over. However those seated at this feast were miserable and complaining, grumbling and angry. They had been given large and unwieldy spoons, and as they tried to serve and feed themselves they continued to spill food on themselves. They tried again and again to feed themselves with their overly long spoons and failed time and again, and so they were miserable, angry, unhappy, unsatisfied.

The man was then taken into another room, identical to the first. With great big tables just like the first, a feast set upon the tables, and many people seated around the tables. Like in the first banquet hall there was enough food to feed everyone several times over. These people even had the same long, unwieldy spoons. However, these people were happy. They were joyous, and smiling, enjoying one another's company. These people, instead of trying to feed themselves with their overly long spoons instead were able to reach across the table, and serve and feed their neighbor. And as they served each other rather than themselves, they were fed, they were satisfied, joyous and happy.

"It's not a question of God 'sending' us to Hell. In each of us there is something growing up which will of itself be Hell unless it is nipped in the bud." - C.S. Lewis

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The unholy can not be in the Prescence of God, rather.
That's why Adam, Eve and the serpent were kicked out of Eden.
God is a consuming Fire, in which only Gold can survive.

If "the unholy can not be in the Presence of God" then the Incarnation is impossible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JacksBratt]

We both understand that as part of the plan of salvation.

All three doctrinal views of the final judgment include that as part.
Universal Restoration does not preclude the atonement, it makes the BEST use of it.
The atonement wasn't ONLY for our sins.

1 John 2:2
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

That's not what I asked...

I asked.."was it necessary"?

We all know it was part of the plan.
We all know that all three doctrinal views include it.


I'm asking if it was necessary..

My point is this:

If God doesn't have to follow His rules.. refer to your retort in post #98 "Seriously, WOW"... when I said that God is bound to the simple laws of the universe...

Then, He could have avoided this, changed the game plan and moved on...

But, no... He is bound to the simple laws of the universe, that He created.. in regards to righteousness, sinfulness and how a sinner can live for eternity in paradise with Him.

He cannot just switch the terms, move the goal posts, change the rules and say.."well, you have been in hell long enough... out ya come".

You either accept Christ by faith.. meaning.. not after you die and you go "oh crap.... I was wrong"...
But.. accept it on faith, in this world, in this time, on this side of the grave..

Cause.. to put it bluntly... there may not be any atheists in a fox hole.. but there are 100% no atheists on the other side of the grave...

So, there's the deal. Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

Nobody is getting to the grave, standing in front of Jesus and saying "Look, here's the deal.. I'm sorry that I didn't believe in ya.. you know how it is... So... can ya cut me some slack here and let me in? I believe in ya now...????? Please!!!. Or.. how bout ya put me in hell for weekends and let me out week days... or maybe I can wash dishes or clean the streets of gold with a tooth brush.

NOPE.. not a chance.

 

[JacksBratt]

You are saying he failed then?
Failed plan? Failed purpose? Failed intent? Wow.

Nope.. God didn't fail.. He made it pretty clear. The way is simple..

God didn't fail... We fail Him.

I am beginning to see where you are mixed up here...

If I have a starving man and I put some soup in front of him.. give him a chair, a table and a spoon.. and he doesn't eat.... Who is failing?

 

[JacksBratt]

I would say that he both expected and anticipated it.
Do you think he was surprised and dismayed by that?
Seems more like, "God in the hands of angry sinners." to me.

Again.... sheeesh.....
I didn't ask that....

I asked....

Did God want people to deny Christ?

It's not a trick question.

 

[JacksBratt]

The unholy can not be in the Prescence of God, rather.
That's why Adam, Eve and the serpent were kicked out of Eden.
God is a consuming Fire, in which only Gold can survive.

Thank you for explaining that much better.

 

[JacksBratt]

I never said anything about eternal conscious torment with no hope to escape.

But the general position of the Church has been that "going" to hell isn't about God sending anyone to hell, but rather hell being born out of choice.

I read a kind of parable once that I've always enjoyed.

There was once a man who received a vision of heaven and hell. The man was taken to a great big banquet hall, with great big tables, a feast set upon the tables, and around the tables seated many people. Enough food to feed everyone several times over. However those seated at this feast were miserable and complaining, grumbling and angry. They had been given large and unwieldy spoons, and as they tried to serve and feed themselves they continued to spill food on themselves. They tried again and again to feed themselves with their overly long spoons and failed time and again, and so they were miserable, angry, unhappy, unsatisfied.

The man was then taken into another room, identical to the first. With great big tables just like the first, a feast set upon the tables, and many people seated around the tables. Like in the first banquet hall there was enough food to feed everyone several times over. These people even had the same long, unwieldy spoons. However, these people were happy. They were joyous, and smiling, enjoying one another's company. These people, instead of trying to feed themselves with their overly long spoons instead were able to reach across the table, and serve and feed their neighbor. And as they served each other rather than themselves, they were fed, they were satisfied, joyous and happy.

"It's not a question of God 'sending' us to Hell. In each of us there is something growing up which will of itself be Hell unless it is nipped in the bud." - C.S. Lewis

-CryptoLutheran

Nice post... like the story.

 

[Der Alte]

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with in my post. The word "hell" does not appear in the New Testament in the Greek texts - every time we read the word "hell" in the New Testament, it's a translation of one of those three words, just as my post states.

That the English word "hell" is not in the New Testament is not really relevant. None of our English words are in the Greek NT. My post was to show that the words "hades" and "gehenna" are correctly translated "hell" in our English NT. The concept of a place of fiery, eternal punishment existed in Israel before and during the time of Jesus they called in both Gehinnom/sheol and in the NT Gehenna and hades.
Jesus would have known about the belief and if it was wrong He certainly would have corrected them.

At the time of Jesus that valley was where all the city's rubbish was thrown, and a fire burned there continually, so it's not surprising Jesus used gehenna as a metaphor for eternal punishment - but Jesus and the New Testament also used hades in reference to the abode of the dead, and when He died, He went and preached to souls which were in prison in hades:

There was never a burning trash dump in valley of Gehenna. As my previous post proved "Gehenna" referred to the place of punishment. There was a garbage dump outside Jerusalem but it was in the Kidron valley not Gehenna.

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.
Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992
Scharen: Gehenna in the Synoptics Pt. 1​

/…..Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.”
(“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)
G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism
Excavations near the Temple Mount and within the residential areas have already shown that no waste had accumulated there (Reich and Billig 2000), and thus waste must have been removed, most likely in an organized manner. Recently, the contemporaneous city-dump was identified on the eastern slope of the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem in the form of a thick mantle (up to 10 m, 200,000 m3 ) (Reich and Shukron 2003). The dump is located roughly 100 m outside and south-east of the Temple Mount on the eastern slope of the Kidron Valley (fig. 1), and extends at least 400 m and is 50–70 m wide. Large amounts of pottery and coins date the dump to the Early Roman period (the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE up to the destruction of the city by the Romans in 70 CE). A preliminary study of the garbage (Bouchnik, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004; Bouchnik et al. 2005) showed the presence of animal bones.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...udy_of_the_City-Dump_of_Early_Roman_Jerusalem ​

"For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit; in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water); (1 Peter 3:18-20).

The New Testament tells us that when He died, Jesus descended into hades and went and preached to the souls imprisoned there. Then He rose again from the dead on the third day.

First the grave/hell is never called prison in the NT and hell/the grave is never called prison.
Jesus did not preach to any souls in hell/the grave. Where 1 Pet 3:18-20 says Jesus preached was in the days of Noah and only 8 people were saved, Noah and his family, and they were alive not dead,

There is a difference between death & hades on one hand, and eternal torment (gehenna) on the other. If it were not the case, the New Testament would not use different words "for the same thing"

Not according to the sources I quoted, which it appears you did not even read.

 

[Zao is life]

That the English word "hell" is not in the New Testament is not really relevant. None of our English words are in the Greek NT. My post was to show that the words "hades" and "gehenna" are correctly translated "hell" in our English NT. The concept of a place of fiery, eternal punishment existed in Israel before and during the time of Jesus they called in both Gehinnom/sheol and in the NT Gehenna and hades.
Jesus would have known about the belief and if it was wrong He certainly would have corrected them.

There was never a burning trash dump in valley of Gehenna. As my previous post proved "Gehenna" referred to the place of punishment. There was a garbage dump outside Jerusalem but it was in the Kidron valley not Gehenna.

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.
Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992
Scharen: Gehenna in the Synoptics Pt. 1​

/…..Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.”
(“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)
G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism
Excavations near the Temple Mount and within the residential areas have already shown that no waste had accumulated there (Reich and Billig 2000), and thus waste must have been removed, most likely in an organized manner. Recently, the contemporaneous city-dump was identified on the eastern slope of the south-eastern hill of Jerusalem in the form of a thick mantle (up to 10 m, 200,000 m3 ) (Reich and Shukron 2003). The dump is located roughly 100 m outside and south-east of the Temple Mount on the eastern slope of the Kidron Valley (fig. 1), and extends at least 400 m and is 50–70 m wide. Large amounts of pottery and coins date the dump to the Early Roman period (the 1st century BCE and the 1st century CE up to the destruction of the city by the Romans in 70 CE). A preliminary study of the garbage (Bouchnik, Bar-Oz and Reich 2004; Bouchnik et al. 2005) showed the presence of animal bones.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...udy_of_the_City-Dump_of_Early_Roman_Jerusalem ​

First the grave/hell is never called prison in the NT and hell/the grave is never called prison.
Jesus did not preach to any souls in hell/the grave. Where 1 Pet 3:18-20 says Jesus preached was in the days of Noah and only 8 people were saved, Noah and his family, and they were alive not dead,

Not according to the sources I quoted, which it appears you did not even read.

So Jesus died and went to hell, according to your theory, and preached to souls in hell who had no hope. Was Jesus there to rub their noses in their hopelessness then?

And at the end, at the time of the Great White Throne, hell will deliver up all the souls in it so they can be thrown back in there again if their names are not found in the book of life, and then hell will be thrown into hell.

So I don't know what that says about God, putting someone through hell, pulling him out of hell and then saying "Sorry, your name's not in this book - back to hell you go"

It's a rather quaint way of viewing the scriptures in the Old and New Testament, but somehow it doesn't gel with ALL the teaching of the New Testament. The valley of Gehenna represents eternal punishment (that one's easy). Hades is the abode of the dead. Tartarus is the bottomless pit. In Greek mythology (where the idea of hades and Tartarus first got a mention) Tartrus is the deepest part of hades, and is a prison. The Greek Septuagint uses the word hades to translate the Hebrew word sheol - each and every time, both of which refer to the abode of departed souls. The word did not miraculously change it's meaning after the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no "hell". It's an English word used for three different things: the abode of departed souls (hades), Tartarus (the bottomless pit), and the lake of fire (eternal torment).

 

[Der Alte]

So Jesus died and went to hell, according to your theory, and preached to souls in hell who had no hope. Was Jesus there to rub their noses in their hopelessness then? ...
There is no "hell". It's an English word used for three different things: the abode of departed souls (hades), Tartarus (the bottomless pit), and the lake of fire (eternal torment).

Once again it appears you did not read my post.
I said scripture NEVER says Jesus went to hell and preached to anyone.
First the Gehenna/hades is never called prison in the NT and hades/Gehenna is never called prison.
Jesus did not preach to any souls in hell/the grave. Where 1 Pet 3:18-20 says Jesus preached was in the days of Noah and only 8 people were saved, Noah and his family, and they were alive not dead,
In my previous unread post I provided evidence that the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal punishment and they called it both Ge Hinnom [valley of Hinnom] and sheol. Read my post.
In the 225 BC Greek translation of the OT Ge Hinnom was translated as Gehenna and sheol was translated "hades." Thus both hades and Gehenna refer to the place of eternal punishment in the NT .Read my post.
I explained everything in my 2 previous posts.

 

[Zao is life]

Once again it appears you did not read my post.
I said scripture NEVER says Jesus went to hell and preached to anyone.
First the Gehenna/hades is never called prison in the NT and hades/Gehenna is never called prison.
Jesus did not preach to any souls in hell/the grave. Where 1 Pet 3:18-20 says Jesus preached was in the days of Noah and only 8 people were saved, Noah and his family, and they were alive not dead,
In my previous unread post I provided evidence that the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal punishment and they called it both Ge Hinnom [valley of Hinnom] and sheol. Read my post.
In the 225 BC Greek translation of the OT Ge Hinnom was translated as Gehenna and sheol was translated "hades." Thus both hades and Gehenna refer to the place of eternal punishment in the NT .Read my post.
I explained everything in my 2 previous posts.

My apologies, I was going on what you said:

"My post was to show that the words "hades" and "gehenna" are correctly translated "hell" in our English NT."

I disagree with the above, and as to the rest, I don't agree with your interpretations here:

Jesus did not preach to any souls in hell/the grave. Where 1 Pet 3:18-20 says Jesus preached was in the days of Noah and only 8 people were saved, Noah and his family, and they were alive not dead,

But I'm prepared to leave it at that because I'm not dead right now. I'm alive (I think) so the subject of death, hell, the abode of the dead, the lake of fire, Tartarus is all way beyond my experience.

 

[JacksBratt]

Once again it appears you did not read my post.
I said scripture NEVER says Jesus went to hell and preached to anyone.
First the Gehenna/hades is never called prison in the NT and hades/Gehenna is never called prison.
Jesus did not preach to any souls in hell/the grave. Where 1 Pet 3:18-20 says Jesus preached was in the days of Noah and only 8 people were saved, Noah and his family, and they were alive not dead,
In my previous unread post I provided evidence that the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus believed in a place of eternal punishment and they called it both Ge Hinnom [valley of Hinnom] and sheol. Read my post.
In the 225 BC Greek translation of the OT Ge Hinnom was translated as Gehenna and sheol was translated "hades." Thus both hades and Gehenna refer to the place of eternal punishment in the NT .Read my post.
I explained everything in my 2 previous posts.

Well done.. both times...