Eternal hell with new creation?

[T. E. Smith]

The new creation theme in the Bible does not seem to go with the notion of an eternal hell. Isaiah 55 and Romans 8 teach God's renewal of the world into perfection. It is said that in the future, Christ will be "all in all." It does not seem to make sense for God's new creation, then, to have an eternal torture chamber in it. In the new creation, God returns the world to its state before sin. How can Hell be part of that intent? How can Christ be all in all, with unbelievers tortured forever?

 

[for_his_glory]

Sheol and Hades, yes; hell, no. When the KJV translates three different words as “hell” and one of those places is the final destination of unbelievers, then more clarification is needed. If hell is the final destination of unbelievers and a place of eternal torment, then there is simply no way that one can say that Sheol, Hades, and hell are all the same. That would be to go against what Scripture states.

I no longer want to discuss this. I will believe what Rev 20:14 already says.

 

[Free]

I no longer want to discuss this. I will believe what Rev 20:14 already says.

I believe what Rev 20:14 says but I’m taking into account all that Scripture says on the matter.

 

[jasonc]

Sheol,isn't and ought not to be confused with the grave .the Greek words for hades isn't not a grave but either the god of the dead and his abode.

In both there are places for those who are good and evil.

Elysian fields where no one can cross into the tarturus area and vice versa .sheol has levels as well.two. without getting into the talmud .

 

[T. E. Smith]

Like what?

Eternal hell with new creation?

The new creation theme in the Bible does not seem to go with the notion of an eternal hell. Isaiah 55 and Romans 8 teach God's renewal of the world into perfection. It is said that in the future, Christ will be "all in all." It does not seem to make sense for God's new creation, then, to have an...

christianforums.net

He did and I will find the source when I can

Constantine pillaged old temples and forbade any new temples to be made, and he removed the altar and idols. He significantly limited paganism. According to Eusebius: Constantine wrote a law "appointing mainly Christian governors and also a law forbidding any remaining pagan officials from sacrificing in their official capacity." He prohibited blood sacrifices.

By what are you measuring this? There was a christian presence in most of the known world by 70AD.

Ahh, I meant to say the second century. The primary source for the apostolic age is Acts, but its historical accuracy is questionable at best (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...tles#Passages_of_disputed_historical_accuracy).

What significance is “household?” Do you include infants? That is not legit. Means adults of age.

Many Tanakh and NT passages connect household and children: Gen. 18:19, 31:41, 36:6, 47:12; Num. 18:11; 1 Chron. 10:6; Matt. 19:29; 1 Tim. 3:12 Biblically, Where does household not include children?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Eternal hell with new creation?

The new creation theme in the Bible does not seem to go with the notion of an eternal hell. Isaiah 55 and Romans 8 teach God's renewal of the world into perfection. It is said that in the future, Christ will be "all in all." It does not seem to make sense for God's new creation, then, to have an...

christianforums.net

Constantine pillaged old temples and forbade any new temples to be made, and he removed the altar and idols. He significantly limited paganism. According to Eusebius: Constantine wrote a law "appointing mainly Christian governors and also a law forbidding any remaining pagan officials from sacrificing in their official capacity." He prohibited blood sacrifices.

He used a pagan term calling himself the head of the Christian church. Rome itself is filled with paganism and there’s every reason to think it was more so centuries later. I doubt the above since paganism continued right into the church substituting names for the old gods. This is widely known in Rome today.

Ahh, I meant to say the second century. The primary source for the apostolic age is Acts, but its historical accuracy is questionable at best (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histo...tles#Passages_of_disputed_historical_accuracy).

Wikipedia is not at all christian friendly. The writings of Luke are used by professional archeologists and are very accurate. No justifiable reason to think Luke’s second book anything less.

Many Tanakh and NT passages connect household and children: Gen. 18:19, 31:41, 36:6, 47:12; Num. 18:11; 1 Chron. 10:6; Matt. 19:29; 1 Tim. 3:12 Biblically, Where does household not include children?

Salvation requires believing. Babies cannot think in those terms. So babies are not included.

TE, if you search to discredit christianity you will certainly find its enemies who will publish what accomplished their goal. If you seek excuses for your leaving, they will be found. Your preselected goal will, however, prevent you from finding out the truth because you render yourself biased.

 

[T. E. Smith]

He used a pagan term calling himself the head of the Christian church. Rome itself is filled with paganism and there’s every reason to think it was more so centuries later. I doubt the above since paganism continued right into the church substituting names for the old gods. This is widely known in Rome today.

No, there is not every reason. A Roman emperor explicitly declared in A.D. 395:

"We decree that no one shall have the right to approach any shrine or temple whatsoever, or to perform abominable sacrifices in any place or time whatsoever. Therefore all who try to deviate from the dogma of the Catholic Church shall hurry to observe it."

In case just seeing this decree is unclear, we know from histories that open persecution of pagans earnestly began. The penalties ran from confiscation of lands and property to death. Alexandria had a large enough pagan majority that it resisted, but in its state of defiance it led to riots and violence. In 529, Justinian closed even the Greek philosophical schools (which held to a mild form of paganism).

Obviously those decrees no longer apply in modern-day Rome.

Wikipedia is not at all christian friendly. The writings of Luke are used by professional archeologists and are very accurate. No justifiable reason to think Luke’s second book anything less.

This is how Suetonius, a reliable historian of that time, records history regularly:

Gaius Caesar was born the day before the Kalends of September in the consulship of his father and Gaius Fonteius Capito. Conflicting testimony makes his birthplace uncertain. Gnaeus Lentulus Gaetulicus writes that he was born at Tibur; Pliny the Elder, that he was born among the Treveri, in a village called Ambitarvium above the Confluence. Pliny adds as proof that altars are shown there, inscribed “For the Delivery of Agrippina.” Verses which were in circulation soon after he became emperor indicate that he was begotten in the winter-quarters of the legions: “He who was born in the camp and reared mid the arms of his country, Gave at the outset a sign that he was fated to rule.” I myself find in the Acta Publica that he first saw the light at Antium.

Gaetulicus is shown to be wrong by Pliny, who says that he told a flattering lie, to add some luster to the fame of a young and vainglorious prince from the city sacred to Hercules; and that he lied with the more assurance because Germanicus really did have a son born to him at Tibur, also called Gaius Caesar, of whose lovable disposition and untimely death I have already spoken. Pliny, on the other hand, has erred in his chronology— for the historians of Augustus agree that Germanicus was not sent to Germany until the close of his consulship, when Gaius was already born. Moreover, the inscription on the altar adds no strength to Pliny’s view, for Agrippina twice gave birth to daughters in that region, and any childbirth, regardless of sex, is called puerperium, since the men of old called girls puerae, just as they called boys puelli.

Furthermore, we have a letter written by Augustus to his granddaughter Agrippina, a few months before he died, about the Gaius in question (for no other child of the name was still alive at that time), reading as follows: “Yesterday I arranged with Talarius and Asillius to bring your boy Gaius on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of June, if it be the will of the gods. I send with him besides one of my slaves who is a physician, and I have written Germanicus to keep him if he wishes. Farewell, my own Agrippina, and take care to come in good health to your Germanicus.” I think it is clear enough that Gaius could not have been born in a place to which he was first taken from Rome when he was nearly two years old. This letter also weakens our confidence in the verses, the more so because they are anonymous. We must then accept the only remaining testimony, that of the public record, particularly since Gaius loved Antium as if it were his native soil, always preferring it to all other places of retreat, and even thinking, it is said, of transferring thither the seat and abode of the empire through weariness of Rome

Wow, quite different from Luke-Acts. Nothing remotely resembling this appears in Luke-Acts. Never does Luke cite sources. Much less conflicting accounts. There is a reason why Suetonius, Thucydides, Josephus, etc. are viewed as reliable, while Luke-Acts not so much. Because a good historian is critical, and cites his sources. Luke-Acts does not.

(And Josephus is viewed as less trustworthy than Suetonius because he is less critical and often forgets to cite sources. However, his is the only eyewitness account of the Jewish War we have, and so is viewed with esteem. Luke is not an eyewitness to the Gospels, certainly, and only to some parts of Acts.)

Furthermore, Luke-Acts clearly has a theological bias. We happily mistrust the hagiographical biographies of Muhammad because of their theological bias.

Salvation requires believing. Babies cannot think in those terms. So babies are not included.

Salvation could require believing parents.

TE, if you search to discredit christianity you will certainly find its enemies who will publish what accomplished their goal. If you seek excuses for your leaving, they will be found. Your preselected goal will, however, prevent you from finding out the truth because you render yourself biased.

In discussing infant baptism I am not discrediting Christianity, and certainly proponents of infant baptism ought not to be called Christianity's "enemies" since it was by far the majority position in the early church.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, there is not every reason. A Roman emperor explicitly declared in A.D. 395:

"We decree that no one shall have the right to approach any shrine or temple whatsoever, or to perform abominable sacrifices in any place or time whatsoever. Therefore all who try to deviate from the dogma of the Catholic Church shall hurry to observe it."

That’s what I said. Christians who don’t adhere to the Roman church were severely persecuted. Do you think they weren’t pagan because they changed the names of the marble statues they worshipped?

In case just seeing this decree is unclear, we know from histories that open persecution of pagans earnestly began. The penalties ran from confiscation of lands and property to death. Alexandria had a large enough pagan majority that it resisted, but in its state of defiance it led to riots and violence. In 529, Justinian closed even the Greek philosophical schools (which held to a mild form of paganism).

Christians were also persecuted. The pagan worship had to be under the Pontifex Maximus, the caesar.

Obviously those decrees no longer apply in modern-day Rome.

This is how Suetonius, a reliable historian of that time, records history regularly:

Wow, quite different from Luke-Acts. Nothing remotely resembling this appears in Luke-Acts. Never does Luke cite sources. Much less conflicting accounts. There is a reason why Suetonius, Thucydides, Josephus, etc. are viewed as reliable, while Luke-Acts not so much. Because a good historian is critical, and cites his sources. Luke-Acts does not.

What? Luke was long dead by the that time. The events of Acts were long over. Suetonius was not an eyewitness being born when the events were over. How could he be an eyewitness for recording events decades before after his birth, if being an eye witness is important to you??

(And Josephus is viewed as less trustworthy than Suetonius because he is less critical and often forgets to cite sources. However, his is the only eyewitness account of the Jewish War we have, and so is viewed with esteem. Luke is not an eyewitness to the Gospels, certainly, and only to some parts of Acts.)

Luke didn’t claim to be an eyewitness. In fact no historian claims to be an eye witness unless they write their own biography. I’ve read tons of history books and cannot recall the author claimed to be an eye witness.

Furthermore, Luke-Acts clearly has a theological bias. We happily mistrust the hagiographical biographies of Muhammad because of their theological bias.

No, I trust completely the factual accounts of Mohammed’s life. It’s not a secret.

Salvation could require believing parents.

In discussing infant baptism I am not discrediting Christianity, and certainly proponents of infant baptism ought not to be called Christianity's "enemies" since it was by far the majority position in the early church.

Neither did I. But no one in Acts baptized those unable to express their faith. That rules out infants and children.

 

[T. E. Smith]

What? Luke was long dead by the that time. The events of Acts were long over. Suetonius was not an eyewitness being born when the events were over. How could he be an eyewitness for recording events decades before after his birth, if being an eye witness is important to you??

Either a historian must 1) have excellent sources, and cite them regularly, or 2) be an eyewitness themselves. Suetonius was the first, Josephus the second. Luke was neither.

Besides, Christians give to thebBiblical histories a level of historical accuracy afforded to no other document in the history of the world! Surely the authors must have all been at least eyewitnesses or have cited their good sources.

Luke didn’t claim to be an eyewitness. In fact no historian claims to be an eye witness unless they write their own biography. I’ve read tons of history books and cannot recall the author claimed to be an eye witness.

Yes Luke did not claim to be an eyewitness, I am not saying Luke lied about his credibility, but rather that he has none. In the Jewish War by Josephus, as I already explained he was an eyewitness, and this is by far the most important historical account of one of the most important events in Jewish history! Josephus was definitely a historian and his book was definitely a history book.

Neither did I. But no one in Acts baptized those unable to express their faith. That rules out infants and children.

All depends on where you start. One could also say, "In Acts, households were baptized, which includes infants and children. Thus people in Acts baptized those unable to express their faith."

 

[T. E. Smith]

That’s what I said. Christians who don’t adhere to the Roman church were severely persecuted. Do you think they weren’t pagan because they changed the names of the marble statues they worshipped?

Really? Theodosius (who wrote that edict I quoted) was a champion of Christian orthodoxy. He established the Nicaean Creed and adhered to Consubstantiality and opposed Arianism. Christian authors viewed him as a crucial ally who ended paganism, and modern historians agree that he was instrumental in ending paganism.

Tell me how Theodosius was a pagan.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Really? Theodosius (who wrote that edict I quoted) was a champion of Christian orthodoxy. He established the Nicaean Creed and adhered to Consubstantiality and opposed Arianism. Christian authors viewed him as a crucial ally who ended paganism, and modern historians agree that he was instrumental in ending paganism.

Tell me how Theodosius was a pagan.

You’ve got to be joking. Paganism is still around. How are you determine the ending of paganism? Rome is as pagan as it was centuries ago. They just changed the names of the marble statutes they worshipped.

 

[T. E. Smith]

You’ve got to be joking. Paganism is still around. How are you determine the ending of paganism? Rome is as pagan as it was centuries ago. They just changed the names of the marble statutes they worshipped.

My historical sources (I'll even cite them professionally for you):

• Bill Leadbetter, "From Constantine to Theodosius (and Beyond)," from The Early Christian World, ed. Philip Esler (2000): vol. 1, pp. 258-92 (especially Theodosius: 285-87).
• Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (1997)
• David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (1998).
• Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire: AD 284-430 (1993)
• A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 2 vols. (1964).

Feel free to purchase and view if you wish. Paganism was heavily attacked with Theodosius, and basically ended with Justinian.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

My historical sources (I'll even cite them professionally for you):

• Bill Leadbetter, "From Constantine to Theodosius (and Beyond)," from The Early Christian World, ed. Philip Esler (2000): vol. 1, pp. 258-92 (especially Theodosius: 285-87).
• Ramsay MacMullen, Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries (1997)
• David Frankfurter, Religion in Roman Egypt: Assimilation and Resistance (1998).
• Averil Cameron, The Later Roman Empire: AD 284-430 (1993)
• A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire 284-602: A Social, Economic, and Administrative Survey, 2 vols. (1964).

Feel free to purchase and view if you wish. Paganism was heavily attacked with Theodosius, and basically ended with Justinian.

You can provide all the citations you wish. It is still here. No one ended it. It’s a like telling me that Lincoln ended slavery. Then I read about the slave trade today. Hmmm

 

[T. E. Smith]

You can provide all the citations you wish. It is still here. No one ended it. It’s a like telling me that Lincoln ended slavery. Then I read about the slave trade today. Hmmm

Urban paganism completely vanished from existence by the eighth century. So in Rome itself, it vanished. It had been heavily persecuted and was fading away centuries before that.

Rural paganism though? It could potentially survive there - it was just as illegal, to be sure, but as long as no one noticed, nothing could technically be done about it. But it became much less common. Again all my sources for this are cited above https://christianforums.net/threads/eternal-hell-with-new-creation.90423/post-1669416

Gaza was a pagan city for the most part in A.D. 390, UNTIL it was "converted" to Christianity through horrible violence. See Mark the Deacon, Life of Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza and Ramsay MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400 (1984): pp. 86-89; also Robert Grant, Early Christianity and Society: Seven Studies (1977): pp. 9-11.

It’s a like telling me that Lincoln ended slavery. Then I read about the slave trade today. Hmmm

Lincoln did not end slavery because his proclamation was only against the South; it did not affect slaves in the North (there were some in the North). But, he obviously did not have control over the South, so masters were not actually forced to release their slaves. So nothing changed until the North won.

Now we can say the constitutional amendment barring slavery ended slavery. But by using the word "slavery" there, we are referring to two specific sorts: 1) American slavery, of course (France and Britain had outlawed it long before, though) and 2) legalized, institutionalized slavery. A slave trade still exists, yes.

EDIT: Corrected typo above: "much more common" >> "much less common".

 

[MouseWhistle]

I thought Revelation said death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I thought Revelation said death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.

But what that means is far more complicated in itself.
Especially since the lake of fire is said to be the second death.
It may simply mean that the first death is replaced by a second.

 

[Goldwing]

the spirit is immortal and does not disintegrate

Mae, I'm only aware that God is immortal, (1 Timothy 6:16 ). Gods created having free choice, could always choose to sin, therefore in the beginning and in the earth made new, the righteous will have conditional immortality, which is why
they must eat of the "Tree of Life."

 

[Free]

Mae, I'm only aware that God is immortal, (1 Timothy 6:16 ). Gods created having free choice, could always choose to sin, therefore in the beginning and in the earth made new, the righteous will have conditional immortality, which is why
they must eat of the "Tree of Life."

1Co 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
1Co 15:55 “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (ESV)

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Mae, I'm only aware that God is immortal, (1 Timothy 6:16 ). Gods created having free choice, could always choose to sin, therefore in the beginning and in the earth made new, the righteous will have conditional immortality, which is why
they must eat of the "Tree of Life."

I’m not sure of the destiny of humans after death in terms of those who rejected Christ/God although there are indications the spirit of man lives in some form eternally. I think this is the safer view but I’m not sure I’m right.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Mae, I'm only aware that God is immortal, (1 Timothy 6:16 ). Gods created having free choice, could always choose to sin, therefore in the beginning and in the earth made new, the righteous will have conditional immortality, which is why
they must eat of the "Tree of Life."

Immortality can also sometimes include a sense of eternal preexistence, so perhaps 1 Timothy's pseudonymous author is referring to "immortality" in this sense, which only God would have.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The new creation theme in the Bible does not seem to go with the notion of an eternal hell. Isaiah 55 and Romans 8 teach God's renewal of the world into perfection. It is said that in the future, Christ will be "all in all." It does not seem to make sense for God's new creation, then, to have an eternal torture chamber in it. In the new creation, God returns the world to its state before sin. How can Hell be part of that intent? How can Christ be all in all, with unbelievers tortured forever?

Hello again, T.E.

It's possible that the Lake of Fire will not be permanent, as there are instances in the NT where the Greek words translated into English as "forever" clearly do not refer to an infinite period of time. But regardless of whether the LOF exists in the New Earth or not, what should not be downplayed is that it most certainly exists now and has for millennium. The following is taken from one of many accounts I could provide:

Again the Lord and I went into Hell. Jesus said to me, "My child, for this purpose you were born, to write and tell what I have told you and shown you. For these things are faithful and true. I have called you forth to tell the world through you that there is a hell, but I have made a way of escape. I will not show you all parts of Hell. And there are hidden things which I cannot reveal to you. But I will show you much. Now come and see the powers of darkness and their end."

We went again to the belly of Hell and began to walk toward a small opening. I turned to look where we were entering and found that we were on a ledge beside a cell in the center of Hell. We stopped in front of a cell in which was a beautiful woman. Over the top of the cell were the letters "B.C."

I heard the woman say, "Lord, I knew you would come someday. Please let me out of this place of torment." She was dressed in the clothes of an ancient era, and she was very beautiful. I knew that .I she had been here for many centuries but could not die. Her soul was in torment. She began to pull at the bars and cry.

Softly Jesus said, "Peace, be still." He spoke to her with sadness in His voice. "Woman, you know why you are here."
"Yes," she said, "but I can change. I remember, when You let all those others out of paradise. I remember Your words of salvation. I will be good now," she cried, "and I will serve You." She clenched the bars of the cell in her tiny fists and began to scream, "Let me out! Let me out!"

At that, she began to change before our eyes. Her clothing began to burn. Her flesh fell off, and all that remained was a black skeleton with burned-out holes for eyes and a hollow shell of a soul. I watched in horror as the old woman fell to the floor. All her beauty had departed in a moment. It staggered my imagination to think that she had been here since before Christ was born.

Jesus said to her, "You knew on earth what your end would be. Moses gave you the law, and you heard it. But instead of obeying My law, you chose to be an instrument in the hands of satan, a soothsayer and witch. You even taught the art of witchcraft. You loved darkness rather than light, and your deeds were evil. If you had repented with your heart, My Father would have forgiven you. But now, it is too late."

With sorrow and great pity in our hearts, we walked away... "My child," said the Lord, "Satan uses many devices to destroy good men and women. He works day and night, trying to get people to serve him. If you fail to choose to serve God, you have chosen to serve the Devil. Choose life, and the truth will set you free." (Divine Revelation Of Hell, Baxter, P.147-149)