Why people reject the reality of Hell

MMXX said:

I know from past experience, anything I post along those lines will be dismissed by you. You
Ah when I see "Letter to the Ephesians" I'm thinking of Paul's Letter to the Ephesians.

Click to expand...

Why would you think Paul's writing when I was quoting ECF who mentioned hell?

MMXX said:

I don't get what you're talking about here. Maybe you meant it for someone else.

Click to expand...

I quoted ECF who mentioned hell and I asked you to call or raise with at least 3 ECF who rejected hell.. Some evidence for the "75%" who allegedly did not believe in hell. This is now at least twice I have asked for evidence.
I finally found the info I was referring to in my post #80 above.
My objection to this blurb is Schaff, et alia, in the entire article do not provide any evidence for the claim made in this lead paragraph. As it stands it is only the unsupported opinion of the author(s).

Der Alte said:

I quoted ECF who mentioned hell and I asked you to call or raise with at least 3 ECF who rejected hell.. Some evidence for the "75%" who allegedly did not believe in hell. This is now at least twice I have asked for evidence.
I finally found the info I was referring to in my post #80 above.

Schaff, Herzogg Encycopedia of Religious Knowledge, Universalism, Vol. 12 p. 96
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 five or six known theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalist but their actual doctrine on this subject is unknown.
Link: Philip Schaff: Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia Vol. : 0120=96 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library​

My objection to this blurb is Schaff, et alia, in the entire article do not provide any evidence for the claim made in this lead paragraph. As it stands it is only the unsupported opinion of the author(s).

Click to expand...

I've come across other sources. But you will just reject them. I posted a bunch of quotes from ECFs to you once and got the same kind condescending rejections. I'd like to have a civil respectful discourse with you, but I've found that's not possible.

MMXX said:

I've come across other sources. But you will just reject them. I posted a bunch of quotes from ECFs to you once and got the same kind condescending rejections. I'd like to have a civil respectful discourse with you, but I've found that's not possible.

Click to expand...

Please show me one time when I rejected something out-of-hand without giving a considered reason? I can't recall any. What about my post #82, which you quoted, is disrespectful?

Gregorikos said:

So you think that when Jesus told his friends in Luke 12:4-5 that they should fear what might come after death worse than they feared being brutally murdered, he was just pulling their leg?

Click to expand...

No.
But there may be exaggeration to make a point.
Did Jesus really want them to literally remove a hand, or pull out an eye? Or was that an exaggeration to make a point?

Gregorikos said:

So you think that when Jesus told his friends in Luke 12:4-5 that they should fear what might come after death worse than they feared being brutally murdered, he was just pulling their leg?

Click to expand...

No.
But there may be exaggeration to make a point.

Did Jesus really want them to literally remove a hand, or pull out an eye? Or was that an exaggeration to make a point?

Saint Steve said:

...

Click to expand...

Saint Steven said:

No.
But there may be exaggeration to make a point.
Did Jesus really want them to literally remove a hand, or pull out an eye? Or was that an exaggeration to make a point?

Click to expand...

There is an old adage about interpreting the Bible, "If the plain sense makes good sense, it is nonsense to seek any other sense." It is dishonest to invent figurative language just to make scripture appear to support one's denominational assumptions/presuppositions.
Just because it is evident that cutting off a hand or putting out an eye is figurative hyperbole that does not mean that everything Jesus said at that time was figurative.

Saint Steven said:

No.
But there may be exaggeration to make a point.

Did Jesus really want them to literally remove a hand, or pull out an eye? Or was that an exaggeration to make a point?

Click to expand...

Fascinating. So what point would you say he was making with his exaggeration?

Gregorikos said:

So you think that when Jesus told his friends in Luke 12:4-5 that they should fear what might come after death worse than they feared being brutally murdered, he was just pulling their leg?

Click to expand...

Getting back to this. I think Jesus meant what he said outright. But I think the emphasis was more on the power of God compared to the power of earthly enemies, rather the emphasis being on hell. However, as far as hell goes, it depends on what Jews thought hell was at the time.

There's someone here who frequently posts a long article with entries from Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud regarding what the Jews believed about hell. But in going over all of it, the only two sources really indicating a hell of eternal torment are found in the Book of Enoch and the Book of Judith. The official view of hell in Judaism that I've heard from reliable sources including rabbis such as Rabbi Moshe Zeldman, is that it lasts one year.

eleos1954 said:

Nope .... the wicked get totally destroyed by fire by God Himself .... described as the 2nd death.

The immortal "soul" belief really confuses a lot of scripture and scripture does not teach that we are immortal .... immortality was forfeited when access to the tree of life in Eden was put in place.

Click to expand...

eleos1954 asked "what is the second death". You were looking for a definition.

Here is mine. I haven't fully explored it completely but to some level I have.

Second Death is references to a future time which is similar to moment of first death of Adam and Eve in where taking fruit of knowing good and evil brought death (Eph 2:1 as for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins). We (Adam and Eve and descendants) were cut off from God spiritually and unable to be with God in connection we were separated. The second death in where these will be cut off from God in lake of fire. So those in lake of fire are in second death by being cut off or separated.

In a place where God is not present. That alone to be in a place opposite of the fruit of Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) is torment.

RileyG said:

People reject hell because they don't believe in the Gospel and/or do not want to be accountable for their un-repented sins.

Click to expand...

I know of Catholic priests who don't believe in hell. At least not the eternal torment version.

Kylism said:

eleos1954 asked "what is the second death". You were looking for a definition.

Here is mine. I haven't fully explored it completely but to some level I have.

Second Death is references to a future time which is similar to moment of first death of Adam and Eve in where taking fruit of knowing good and evil brought death (Eph 2:1 as for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins). We (Adam and Eve and descendants) were cut off from God spiritually and unable to be with God in connection we were separated. The second death in where these will be cut off from God in lake of fire. So those in lake of fire are in second death by being cut off or separated.

In a place where God is not present. That alone to be in a place opposite of the fruit of Spirit (Gal 5:22-23) is torment.

Click to expand...

well .... death is death .... not to exist (we understand fully earthly death - 1st death)

what the issue is .... if there's any conciseness in the 2nd death then that is claiming a conscience for eternity of some kind .... whether mental, physical or both.

Revelation 20:7

Satan Is Destroyed Forever

7 When the 1,000 years are finished, Satan will be free to leave his prison. 8 He will go out and fool the nations who are over all the world. They are Gog and Magog. He will gather them all together for war. There will be as many as the sand along the sea-shore. 9 They will spread out over the earth and all around the place where God’s people are and around the city that is loved. Fire will come down from God out of heaven and destroy them.

Is God going to destroy satan or not? Yes He is ... AMEN!

MMXX said:

Getting back to this. I think Jesus meant what he said outright. But I think the emphasis was more on the power of God compared to the power of earthly enemies, rather the emphasis being on hell. However, as far as hell goes, it depends on what Jews thought hell was at the time.

There's someone here who frequently posts a long article with entries from Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud regarding what the Jews believed about hell. But in going over all of it, the only two sources really indicating a hell of eternal torment are found in the Book of Enoch and the Book of Judith. The official view of hell in Judaism that I've heard from reliable sources including rabbis such as Rabbi Moshe Zeldman, is that it lasts one year.

Click to expand...

I think what Jews thought at the time is irrelevant. They thought many things that Jesus disagreed with. What really matters is what Jesus said, and he clearly warned that something could come after death, even a murderous death, which was to be feared. He wasn't teaching about the power of God there. He was teaching about hell.

Gregorikos said:

I think what Jews thought at the time is irrelevant. They thought many things that Jesus disagreed with. What really matters is what Jesus said, and he clearly warned that something could come after death, even a murderous death, which was to be feared. He wasn't teaching about the power of God there. He was teaching about hell.

Click to expand...

The Lord Jesus Christ, the full expression of our Father, spoke once of "everlasting punishment ", and what were the qualifying factors.

The Lake of Theos/ Fire is the end of all 4 hells & death!

Gregorikos said:

I think what Jews thought at the time is irrelevant. They thought many things that Jesus disagreed with. What really matters is what Jesus said, and he clearly warned that something could come after death, even a murderous death, which was to be feared. He wasn't teaching about the power of God there. He was teaching about hell.

Click to expand...

You said "I think what Jews thought at the time is irrelevant." That may be true in some instances but what the Jews believed about "hell." Remember the founder, Jesus, and the first 12 Christians were Jews.
My ¢¢Below are quotes from three Jewish sources; the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1972 Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Which to date have not been, and I am convinced cannot be, refuted.
= = = = =
…..It is very enticing to claim that the Christian concept of "Hell" was somehow derived from Dante's 14th century writing “Inferno,” or some later writing. But according to these three sources, at least 16 centuries before Dante even scribbled one line, among the יהודים/Yehudim/ιουδαιων/Youdaion/Jews in Israel, before and during the time of Jesus, there was a significant belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom. Sheol and gehinnom are written Hades and Gehenna, respectively, in both the 225 BC LXX and the NT. As can be seen by the citations in this post The Jews later called both Sheol/Hades, and Ge Hinnom/Gehenna, “Hell.
…..There were different factions within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. These differing beliefs do not disprove anything in this post.
Note: This is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA
…..This refutes the false narrative that the eleven [11] times Jesus mentioned “Gehenna” He was referring to the valley of GeHinnom/Gehenna outside Jerusalem where trash and bodies were supposedly always burning.
When Jesus taught e.g.,
[A fate worse than death. DA]
…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell, c.f. Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and Talmud, supra.
In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.
…..A punishment worse than death, without mercy, is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.
…..“how much sorer punishment,””Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord,””It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” these deprecations certainly do not sound like everyone will be saved, no matter what.
…..Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He intended to say “eternal death,” in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment/aionios kolasis.”
….The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, see Acts of the Apostles 23:8. They knew that everybody died; rich, poor; young, old; good, bad; men, women; children, infants; sick, healthy, and knew that it was permanent and often it did not involve punishment.
When Jesus taught, e.g., “eternal punishment” the Sadducees would not have understood it as simply death, it very likely would have meant something worse to them.
…..Re: Matt 25:46 concerning “punishment” one early church father wrote,
It is not punishment if it is not experienced,
…..Jesus attended Temple and synagogues for about 25 years +/-. He undoubtedly knew what the Jews believed about the fate of the unrighteous. He opposed the Jewish leaders many times, If the Jewish teaching on hell was wrong, why wouldn’t Jesus tell them there was no hell, no eternal punishment etc? Why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, e.g.

Gregorikos said:

I think what Jews thought at the time is irrelevant. They thought many things that Jesus disagreed with. What really matters is what Jesus said, and he clearly warned that something could come after death, even a murderous death, which was to be feared. He wasn't teaching about the power of God there. He was teaching about hell.

Click to expand...

How could what the Jews believed about hell be irrelevant?

MMXX said:

How could what the Jews believed about hell be irrelevant?

Click to expand...

Because Jesus didn't rehash what the Jews believed.

"You have heard what it was said...... but I say to you...."

The people were astonished at His teaching, because He taught as one who had authority, and not as the scribes. (BSB) Mark 1:22

All the people were amazed and began to ask one another, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! (BSB) Mark 1:27

The Jews believed some things correctly, and some things incorrectly. So their views are not the standard by which we judge, especially when their views contradicts the teachings of Jesus.

Der Alte said:

You said "I think what Jews thought at the time is irrelevant." That may be true in some instances but what the Jews believed about "hell." Remember the founder, Jesus, and the first 12 Christians were Jews.
My ¢¢Below are quotes from three Jewish sources; the 1917 Jewish Encyclopedia, 1972 Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud. Which to date have not been, and I am convinced cannot be, refuted.
= = = = =
…

Click to expand...

TLDR, it doesn't matter. What the Jews believed is irrelevant because Because Jesus didn't rehash what the Jews believed.

"You have heard what it was said...... but I say to you...."

The people were astonished at His teaching, because He taught as one who had authority, and not as the scribes. (BSB) Mark 1:22

All the people were amazed and began to ask one another, “What is this? A new teaching with authority! (BSB) Mark 1:27

The Jews believed some things correctly, and some things incorrectly. So their views are not the standard by which we judge, especially when their views contradicts the teachings of Jesus.