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?

 

[Butch5]

The lack of Jesus not mentioning hell in one verse you quote doesn’t mean it’s not there or that he never taught it. Jesus warned about hell more than all the others put together. Do you need scriptures where he discusses hell where the “worm dies not and the fire is never quenched?”

Actually, He didn't speak of hell. That's an English word. He spoke of Gehenna, which is the Valley of the Son of Hinom which is located outside of Jerusalem. He also spoke of Hades, or sheol in Hebrew, which is the grave. Neither of these are a place of firey eternal torment. The passage you quote Jesus saying is from Isaiah 66. If we look at the passage in context we find that what is burning there are corpses, dead bodies. These are not souls suffering eternal torment. They are dead people.

Isaiah 66:22–24 (NKJV): “For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,
“So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.
24 “And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Notice the context. It's the restored creation. The new heavens and earth

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Actually, He didn't speak of hell. That's an English word. He spoke of Gehenna, which is the Valley of the Son of Hinom which is located outside of Jerusalem. He also spoke of Hades, or sheol in Hebrew, which is the grave. Neither of these are a place of firey eternal torment. The passage you quote Jesus saying is from Isaiah 66. If we look at the passage in context we find that what is burning there are corpses, dead bodies. These are not souls suffering eternal torment. They are dead people.

Isaiah 66:22–24 (NKJV): “For as the new heavens and the new earth
Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says the Lord,
“So shall your descendants and your name remain.
23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the Lord.
24 “And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Notice the context. It's the restored creation. The new heavens and earth

Yeah, I’ve heard that argument. If one thinks about it, warning men about the grave is fairly useless because how are you supposed to avoid that? Although come to think of it, this idea would come in quite handy to a company promoting cremation.

Same with the county dump. All we can surmise from your explanation of Jesus’ teaching is do not visit the county dump, something pretty easy to do and even the bad guys can do this no problem.

So Jesus’ rather dire warnings are reduced to “nothing to worry about” in your theology. You’ve rendered scripture essentially null and void on that point. Wouldn’t want that charge laid at my doorstep on Judgement Day.

 

[Butch5]

So Paradise is a place that now exists and is not a future plan, right? I mean that thief has been there for over 2000 years along with others, we can assume.

No, the thief hasn't been there for 2000 years. He's in the grave. Yes, the Paradise exists, it's desert now. But, it too will be restored.

And they’re already there! So much for a future state. (You’d best avoid that scripture next time as it soundly defeats your position, Paradise being already finished and inhabitable.

No one's there. The only one who's been resurrected is Jesus. He's at the right hand of God.

He doesn’t inherit Eden.

That's funny because Paul said He is heir of all things. Can you explain how Eden isn't a part of all things?

There it is again. In your mind, what you think IS scripture, no difference. Anyone who sees the matter differently disagrees with Scripture/God. Not a very open and teachable attitude.

Nope.
Here's the passage.

Acts 3:19–21 (NKJV): Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

You're not disagreeing with me.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, the thief hasn't been there for 2000 years. He's in the grave. Yes, the Paradise exists, it's desert now. But, it too will be restored.

Jesus said “today.” You disagree with Jesus??

No one's there. The only one who's been resurrected is Jesus. He's at the right hand of God.

That's funny because Paul said He is heir of all things. Can you explain how Eden isn't a part of all things?

Easy, it was destroyed.

Nope.
Here's the passage.

Acts 3:19–21 (NKJV): Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

So he’s restoring the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, slavery, I could go on and on… That’s all things..

You're not disagreeing with me.

Yes I am. And you’re disagreeing with Jesus who promised a dying man Paradise.

 

[Butch5]

It’s very common and was not lost. The fact is we all die and the burning question is where are we in the meantime and on earth is NOT the answer.

Butch, this is not at all new. It’s very old and very commonly thought. Could hardly be more common. There’s a new heaven and new earth coming but since it’s not here, other questions are more pressing.

I didn't say it was new. Obviously if it was taught in the Bible it's not new.

The burning question? It's answered over and over in Scripture. When man dies he returns to the dust. That's in the earth.

The new heaven and earth is important. It's the Christian's hope

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I didn't say it was new. Obviously if it was taught in the Bible it's not new.

The burning question? It's answered over and over in Scripture. When man dies he returns to the dust. That's in the earth.

The new heaven and earth is important. It's the Christian's hope

“To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” That is our hope.

I haven’t yet figured out what motives people to insist that one just lies dead in the grave for a time. I mean when Steven was being stoned to death, Jesus stood up to receive him. I guess for your team he was just standing up to get a better view or something.

 

[Butch5]

Jesus said “today.” You disagree with Jesus??

Yes, Jesus said today. If you research this passage you'll find some interesting things. Firstly, the Greek text had no punctuation. That means Luke didn't put a comma before the word today. The translators did that. The word today can modify either, "I say" or "be with". It is correct in the Greek either way. So, we have to use other means to determine whether Jesus said, I say to you today(comma) you will be with me in Paradise, or if He said, I say to you (comma) today you will be with me in paradise. Whether the comma goes before or after the word today cannot be determined by the grammar. That means it's up to the translator to place it where he "thinks" it should be. Where he "thinks" it should be is based on what he believes. Therefore it's simply an opinion. To translate it, I say to you today (comma) you will be with me in Paradise is just as valid as the other way. Since dead people return to dust the logical translation is to say Jesus said, I say to you today (comma) you will be with me in Paradise.

Easy, it was destroyed.

Where do you find that in scripture?? If it was destroyed why does Genesis say that God put an angel with a sword to guard the way to the tree of life?

So he’s restoring the Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, slavery, I could go on and on… That’s all things..

The creation. Context!

Yes I am. And you’re disagreeing with Jesus who promised a dying man Paradise.

No, everything I've said is right in Scripture. See above regarding the thief.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Dorothy Mae I don't understand what motivates people to insist that one doesn't just lie in the grave. That is what happens as far as we can tell. As for warning people about death, that is appropriate because death's unavoidability motivates us to live our best lives here and now.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Please don't continue the dog fight you two are in.

There's a reason why I didn't reply to his post. I tire of this.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Yes, Jesus said today. If you research this passage you'll find some interesting things. Firstly, the Greek text had no punctuation. That means Luke didn't put a comma before the word today. The translators did that. The word today can modify either, "I say" or "be with". It is correct in the Greek either way. So, we have to use other means to determine whether Jesus said, I say to you today(comma) you will be with me in Paradise, or is He said, I say to you (comma) today you will be withe in paradise. Whether the a goes before or after the word today cannot be determined by the grammar. That means it's up to the translator to place it where he "thinks" it should be. Where he "thinks" it should be is based on what he believes. Therefore it's simply an opinion. To translate it, I say to you today (comma) you will be with me in Paradise is just as valid as the other way. Since dead people return to dust the logical translation is to say Jesus said, I say to you today (comma) you will be with me in Paradise.

Where do you find that in scripture?? If it was destroyed why does Genesis say that God put an angel with a sword to guard the way to the tree of life?

The creation. Context!

No, everything I've said is right in Scripture. See above regarding the thief.

Thank you for pointing that out concerning the punctuation.

 

[Butch5]

“To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” That is our hope.

Actually that's not what he said. He said he was willing to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. I'm always amazed when people quote this one. If we look at it in context Paul is actually arguing against the very idea you're using his words to promote. This passage starts in chapter 4 and is referring to the resurrection, not the state of the dead. Notice in the beginning of chapter 5 he speaks of an earthly tent and a house from Heaven. He goes on to explain this as being corruptible and incorruptible. Then he says he doesn't want to be found naked. He is refuting the Greek idea of leaving the body. They believed the soul would leave the body and continue on. He equates this leaving the body with being naked. Then he says he doesn't want that. He says he wants to be overclothed saying that he wants his mortality to be swallowed up by life. In other words, he wants his morality to be enveloped by immortality. If we look at the passage you mentioned we find that the words absent and present mean to be away from and with one's people. And the body he is referring to is the church. The body of Christ. If he is absent, he away from his people, the body of Christ. If he is present, he is with his people the body of Christ.

I haven’t yet figured out what motives people to insist that one just lies dead in the grave for a time. I mean when Steven was being stoned to death, Jesus stood up to receive him. I guess for your team he was just standing up to get a better view or something.

The Bible. God told Adam if he ate from thr tree of knowledge he would die. Then he said, from dust you were taken and to dust you shall return. We have it right from God.

What motives you to think people don't die when Scripture says they do?

 

[Butch5]

Thank you for pointing that out concerning the punctuation.

You're welcome! There are other points to be made there but for the sake of time I kept it brief

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy Mae I don't understand what motivates people to insist that one doesn't just lie in the grave. That is what happens as far as we can tell. As for warning people about death, that is appropriate because death's unavoidability motivates us to live our best lives here and now.

No, that is the only outside observable phenomenon. It’s like looking at a comatose patient assuming their awareness is also comatosed only to learn when they awake that they heard what people around them said and were completely cognizant although physically incapacitated. The observable is not all there is.

So, does it work in motivating people to live good lives because death is at the end? Is this motivating in truth? I hadn’t noticed, frankly speaking.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

There's a reason why I didn't reply to his post. I tire of this.

Well, it really wasn’t to you now, was it? Ed’s post was demeaning and sexist as if two females cannot have an intellectual discussion whereas two men never just have a dog fight, of course.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Well, it really wasn’t to you now, was it? Ed’s post was demeaning and sexist as if two females cannot have an intellectual discussion whereas two men never just have a dog fight, of course.

He was speaking to me when he used that term "girly", and I have called him out for that term before because he has regularly used it, or similar anti-women sentiments.

No, that is the only outside observable phenomenon. It’s like looking at a comatose patient assuming their awareness is also comatosed only to learn when they awake that they heard what people around them said and were completely cognizant although physically incapacitated. The observable is not all there is.

We can observe from their testimonies that they were in fact aware of things around them, and thus awareness during a state of being comatose is an observable phenomenon.

So, does it work in motivating people to live good lives because death is at the end? Is this motivating in truth? I hadn’t noticed, frankly speaking.

It motivates me, and it motivates some people. For other people, it does not. But you don't have much grounds for criticism here - you propose the afterlife, but for a lot of people, this concept of an afterlife does not motivate them to, say, be a Christian.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Actually, He didn't speak of hell. That's an English word. He spoke of Gehenna, which is the Valley of the Son of Hinom which is located outside of Jerusalem. He also spoke of Hades, or sheol in Hebrew, which is the grave.

Greetings, Butch.

There are a great number of problems with the SDA/ Jehovahs Witness position on the doctrine of Hell. I have friends who are SDA so I try to be polite about it, but that Hell is simply the grave is the single-most damnable doctrine they teach.

But let me start with this: If Hades is merely the grave, then why did Jesus use the word to describe the rich man lifting up His eyes in Hades, and crying out for a drop of cool water?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Yes, Jesus said today. If you research this passage you'll find some interesting things. Firstly, the Greek text had no punctuation. That means Luke didn't put a comma before the word today. The translators did that. The word today can modify either, "I say" or "be with". It is correct in the Greek either way. So, we have to use other means to determine whether Jesus said, I say to you today(comma) you will be with me in Paradise, or if He said, I say to you (comma) today you will be with me in paradise. Whether the comma goes before or after the word today cannot be determined by the grammar. That means it's up to the translator to place it where he "thinks" it should be. Where he "thinks" it should be is based on what he believes. Therefore it's simply an opinion. To translate it, I say to you today (comma) you will be with me in Paradise is just as valid as the other way. Since dead people return to dust the logical translation is to say Jesus said, I say to you today (comma) you will be with me in Paradise.

Here is the trouble with this argument, Butch. Jesus used the phrase Ἀμήν σοι λέγω fifty one times in the gospels. In not one of them did He ever include the qualifier "today." The supposition that He altered the use of His commonly-used phrase in this ONE instance alone - and in so doing was completely at odds with the teachings of the early church - is an argument that smells of manipulating a passage merely for the sake of establishing a heresy. It's an obvious twisting and contorting of the verse to fit a particular narrative, rather than a reasonable and plausible position based upon actual "scripture."

 

[Hidden In Him]

You're correct. The eternal torment doctrine is not what Scripture teaches. The idea comes from Christians trying to hold on to a Greek concept.

Please consider this, Butch:

I address him as respectfully as I know how, as Christians should, but shouldn't it give you pause when your teachings on a very important Christian doctrine fall fully into alignment with those of a Satanist?

 

[Butch5]

Greetings, Butch.

There are a great number of problems with the SDA/ Jehovahs Witness position of the doctrine of Hell. I have friends who are SDA so I try to be polite about it, but that Hell is simply the grave is the single-most damnable doctrine they teach.

But let me start with this: If Hades is merely the grave, then why did Jesus use the word to describe the rich man lifting up His eyes in Hades, and crying out for a drop of hot water?

Hi Hidden, I don't like to label doctrines. A doctrine stands or falls on its own merits regardless of the beliefs of the one espousing the doctrine.

To answer your question, because it's a parable. If this is about what happens to people after they die and leave the body, how is it that they all have bodies? Eyes, tongue, finger, bosom, etc. these are all body parts. How do disembodied beings have bodies?

If we examine this passage carefully we find a lot of evidence as to what it means. Firstly, let's consider why the Rich Man is in Hades suffering in the flame. Whenever Jesus spoke of people being cast into the fire, it's always Gehenna, not Hades. So why did He say Hades this one time? If we dig deeper we find that there are only two places in Scripture where Hades is associated with burning. One is this passage about the Rich Man. The other is in Deuteronomy where Moses predicts Israel's turning away from God and the Judgment that God will bring.

21 They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God;
They have moved Me to anger by their foolish idols.
But I will provoke them to jealousy by those who are not a nation;
I will move them to anger by a foolish nation.
22 For a fire is kindled in My anger,
And shall burn to the lowest hell;
It shall consume the earth with her increase,
And set on fire the foundations of the mountains.
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Dt 32:21–22.

The word translated hell in this passage is the word Hades. This is the only other passage that mentions burning in Hades. This passage is from the Song of Moses and the Jews would be well familiar with it. So, when they heard Jesus say the Rich Man was in Hades suffering burning they should immediately have thought of this passage of Scripture. As we see, it is Gods anger that is burning in this passage, and it is burning to the lowest Hades, grave.

In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man Jesus draws from several Old Testament passages. He creates a story of the judgment that was about to come upon Israel for their rejection and crucifixion of Christ. Look at the details of the parable. The Rich Man was clothed in purple and fine linen. The Priesthood wore purple and fine linen. The priesthood fared sumptuously. The Rich Man had five brothers. Levi, the tribe of the priesthood had five brothers. Look at Lazarus. His name in Hebrew means, God help. What did Jesus say when He was on the cross? He quoted Psalm 22.


My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Ps 22:1.

Lazarus was poor. Jesus was poor. Lazarus was covered in sores, Jesus, after the flogging, was covered in sores. The Jews rejected Jesus, but the Gentiles accepted Him. Lazarus was rejected by the Rich Man, but the dogs (Gentiles were called dogs by the Jews) accepted him, they licked His sores. Lazarus was carried away by angels. Jesus was carried away by angels. Remember what Jesus had said to the Jews. He said you will see people coming from the east and the west sitting down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but the sons of the kingdom will be case out. What do we see in this parable? Lazarus, Jesus, sitting down with Abraham and the son of the kingdom cast out.

Remember, this parable is directed at the Scribes and Pharisees. The setting is a dinner at the home of a ruler of the Pharisees. There were rich and poor and Jesus is using this to make His point.

There is much more that could be said on this. One could probably write a book on this parable alone. I haven't even touched on Isaiah 28-29, Malachi, or Psalm 51. He draws from all of those in this parable.

 

[Butch5]

Here is the trouble with this argument, Butch. Jesus used the phrase Ἀμήν σοι λέγω fifty one times in the gospels. In not one of them did He ever include the qualifier "today." The supposition that He altered the use of His commonly-used phrase in this ONE instance alone - and in so doing was completely at odds with the teachings of the early church - is an argument that smells of manipulating a passage merely for the sake of establishing a heresy. It's an obvious twisting and contorting of the verse to fit a particular narrative, rather than a reasonable and plausible position based upon actual "scripture."

Not at all. The position you hold presupposes that man lives on after death. This is not a Biblical teaching. If we remove this false premise there is only one option for understanding Jesus' words in that passage. Since the comma is added by the translators and is not original we have to determine what is actually possible. We know Jesus didn't go to Paradise that day because when He appeared to Mary at the resurrection He told her not to touch Him because He had not ascended to the Father yet. We know that Paradise, the Garden is in the Kingdom of God. Paul saw Paradise when he was caught up into heaven.

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago-- whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows-- such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
3 And I know such a man-- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows--
4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. (2 Cor. 12:2-4 NKJ)

We see that Paradise is in the third heaven. If Jesus hadn't ascended to the Father yet, three days after the crucifixion, then there is no way He could have possibly gone to Paradise the day He spoke to the thief.

Also, If we take the Scriptural position that man doesn't live on after death, we see clearly that neither of them went to Paradise that day because Scripture tells us that Jesus was in the grave for three days.