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?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

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.

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?

Let’s look at the Greek direct translation

“Now we are confident and are pleased rather to be absent out of the body, and to be at home with the Lord.”

There is no “willing” but there is a confident. We could drop the phrase, “and are rather pleased” and it reads correctly “I am confident to be absent out of the body and to be at home with the Lord. •Being willing” is a really silly interpretation as it says nothing. This is a problem with deciding on a theology you like and then running to scripture to find a way to make it support that. You have to make Paul say something that is nonsensical like, he is "willing" to be with the Lord but alas, that is not to be," something he never would have said.

And we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 This is not a Greek concept at all. God is a God of the living, not the dead in the graves.

Paul is not refuting the idea of leaving the body at all but supporting it. He’s not speaking about being in the grave for millennia but as though this is eminent.

Now I read the passage that you think supports your position and do not see that it says what you claim it does. You referred to this passage in "Then he says he doesn't want to be found naked. He is refuting the Greek idea of leaving the body." He is doing no such thing. Leaving the body does not mean one is naked and he does not want to leave the body at death because it will mean he is naked. Actually, in the body dead he is naked if he says in it if you think about it. The Heberws, by the way, had the idea of leaving the body as well and this is reflected in instances in the Old Testament.

You said "we find that the words absent and present mean to be away from and with one's people" which is also not true and can be refuted by your own words, since "being naked" always refers to his physical body, not the church. Paul wrote "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." which you have to think it means Paul prefers to be away from the church. He opens up with "For we know that if our earthly [a]house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" which is clearly talking about the physical body, not the church. He does not expect that this earthly house, the body, will be destroyed.

 

[Hopeful]

Hi Hopeful,

There are plenty more passage I could give you. I would also point out that the phrase "for ever" that you quote from Jude is wrongly translated. The Greek word there is aion. It's properly translated age. The passage literally says, 'the blackness of darkness unto the age'. We know that aion doesn't mean forever because Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the apostles all speak of the end of the aion. So we know the aion ends. The problem is in the translation.

Matthew 24:3 (KJV 1900): 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 13:49–50 (KJV 1900): 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Matthew 13:37–40 (KJV 1900): He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

In these passages the word translated world is aion. It's the same word that is translated forever in Jude 1:13. As we can clearly see Jesus and the apostles all indicate that the aion will end. Thus, it cannot mean forever. Forever, by definition doesn't end.

"World" and "forever" are the same word? (aion)
That makes no sense.
This world will end, and the tares of the parable will burn.

Consider Paul's words.
Hebrews 9:24–26 (KJV 1900): For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Again, the word world is the Greek word aion. Here it is in the plural number, literally, ages. Again, this shows that it can't mean forever. We can't have forevers. There can't be more than one forever by definition. Yet Paul is talking about multiple ones.

The world has an end.
Any suffering the "tares" will experience cannot be measured with time.
The only folks that would be interested in such information are those that know their end will not be pretty, and they hope it is over fast.
But the measuring of time will end.
It is written..."And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:" (Rev 10:6)

If we live with the love for God and for our fellow men in our hearts, we will not be concerned about what the disobedient haters of God receive.

 

[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.

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?

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.

Ah, so is Paul the heir of the Nazis? How about Black Plague? Does Paul inherit the Reign of Terror? I mean that is "all things" right? The problem is you are thinking like a Greek and not a Hebrew. The idea that "all" means everything that every existed is Greek thinking. It is certainly not Hebrew thinking which uses "all" a lot and does not mean every single one on the entire planet or in history. When Paul wrote that the "gospel has been preached to all creatures" he did not mean every single living being on the planet. Your thinking is Greek here.

 

[Butch5]

Let’s look at the Greek direct translation

“Now we are confident and are pleased rather to be absent out of the body, and to be at home with the Lord.”

There is no “willing” but there is a confident. We could drop the phrase, “and are rather pleased” and it reads correctly “I am confident to be absent out of the body and to be at home with the Lord. •Being willing” is a really silly interpretation as it says nothing. This is a problem with deciding on a theology you like and then running to scripture to find a way to make it support that. You have to make Paul say something that is nonsensical like, he is "willing" to be with the Lord but alas, that is not to be," something he never would have said.

And we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 This is not a Greek concept at all. God is a God of the living, not the dead in the graves.

Paul is not refuting the idea of leaving the body at all but supporting it. He’s not speaking about being in the grave for millennia but as though this is eminent.

Now I read the passage that you think supports your position and do not see that it says what you claim it does. You referred to this passage in "Then he says he doesn't want to be found naked. He is refuting the Greek idea of leaving the body." He is doing no such thing. Leaving the body does not mean one is naked and he does not want to leave the body at death because it will mean he is naked. Actually, in the body dead he is naked if he says in it if you think about it. The Heberws, by the way, had the idea of leaving the body as well and this is reflected in instances in the Old Testament.

You said "we find that the words absent and present mean to be away from and with one's people" which is also not true and can be refuted by your own words, since "being naked" always refers to his physical body, not the church. Paul wrote "We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." which you have to think it means Paul prefers to be away from the church. He opens up with "For we know that if our earthly [a]house, this tent, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" which is clearly talking about the physical body, not the church. He does not expect that this earthly house, the body, will be destroyed.

It's clear from your denials, without evidence I might add, that you're either not familiar with or are ignoring the context and the historical setting. Even an elementary understanding of the historical setting shows that the Greeks sought to escape the body. The Greek hope, and the Gnostic also, was to escape the body and ascend into the heavens to the ultimate god. It's kind of funny how Christians seek the same thing. Paul called the Greeks foolish and John called the Gnostics the spirit of antichrist. I hardly think that Jesus and the apostles and in this case Paul would be preaching the Greek, Gnostic hope as the Gospel of Christ

As I said to Hidden, how about we establish your premise. Please show a passage of Scripture that teaches that people live on after death. How about one that teaches people go to Heaven when they die. If you can't establish that then what you present is merely conjecture.


2 Corinthians 5:8 (Westcott): θαρρουμεν δε και ευδοκουμεν μαλλον εκδημησαι εκ του σωματος και ενδημησαι προς τον κυριον

Your claim was that to be absent from the body "IS" to be present with the Lord. As I pointed out, the word "IS" does not appear in the text. So, Paul is not equating one with the other. He is simply stating a desire. As I said, the words translated absent and present mean to be with or away from one's people. And, Paul often uses the body as a metaphor for the church.

Your claim that Paul could be alive somehow after death is based on a false premise. One that you have not established. You can't simply claim I'm wrong without establishing your own premise. Otherwise you're simply giving an opinion. The idea that man lives on after death is not taught anywhere in the Bible. The only hope the Bible holds out for the dead is the Resurrection. That comes as the end.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

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.

I have heard this before and it is really silly. Jesus dying agony where every word was extremely painful (the word "excruciating" comes from this form of death) added extra unnecessary words like telling the thief that he was talking to him today, not yesterday and not tomorrow. He was actually telling a dying man something that would not be of very much comfort as in "thousands of years in the future you will be with me."

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?

You never heard of the flood that destroyed the earth?

The creation. Context!

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

Everything is said right in Scripture but you are not rightly saying what Scripture says.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It's clear from your denials, without evidence I might add, that you're either not familiar with or are ignoring the context and the historical setting. Even an elementary understanding of the historical setting shows that the Greeks sought to escape the body. The Greek hope, and the Gnostic also, was to escape the body and ascend into the heavens to the ultimate god. It's kind of funny how Christians seek the same thing. Paul called the Greeks foolish and John called the Gnostics the spirit of antichrist. I hardly think that Jesus and the apostles and in this case Paul would be preaching the Greek, Gnostic hope as the Gospel of Christ

As I said to Hidden, how about we establish your premise. Please show a passage of Scripture that teaches that people live on after death. How about one that teaches people go to Heaven when they die. If you can't establish that then what you present is merely conjecture.


2 Corinthians 5:8 (Westcott): θαρρουμεν δε και ευδοκουμεν μαλλον εκδημησαι εκ του σωματος και ενδημησαι προς τον κυριον

Your claim was that to be absent from the body "IS" to be present with the Lord. As I pointed out, the word "IS" does not appear in the text. So, Paul is not equating one with the other. He is simply stating a desire. As I said, the words translated absent and present mean to be with or away from one's people. And, Paul often uses the body as a metaphor for the church.

Your claim that Paul could be alive somehow after death is based on a false premise. One that you have not established. You can't simply claim I'm wrong without establishing your own premise. Otherwise you're simply giving an opinion. The idea that man lives on after death is not taught anywhere in the Bible. The only hope the Bible holds out for the dead is the Resurrection. That comes as the end.

I got news for you, the Greeks were not the only ones who thought the body left after death. The Hebrews did as well as many other people groups. The Greeks did not invent it.

Paul did not refer to nakedness, a state of the body, as the church. There are so many holes in this thinking both intellectually as well as scripturally.

 

[Butch5]

Ah, so is Paul the heir of the Nazis? How about Black Plague? Does Paul inherit the Reign of Terror? I mean that is "all things" right? The problem is you are thinking like a Greek and not a Hebrew. The idea that "all" means everything that every existed is Greek thinking. It is certainly not Hebrew thinking which uses "all" a lot and does not mean every single one on the entire planet or in history. When Paul wrote that the "gospel has been preached to all creatures" he did not mean every single living being on the planet. Your thinking is Greek here

Another fallacy. You're arguing a straw man. I said all things, I even elaborated to you that the context was creation. Now here you are trying to claim I said everything that ever existed. It's funny that you say I'm thinking like a Greek when you're the one saying that man lives on after death and seeks to ascend to the heavens when that was the very heart of Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism. No, I'm the one thinking like the Hebrews. Man is dust just as Genesis says. The Hebrews didn't believe man was an immortal soul that ascended into the heavens. It wasn't until the Babylonian captivity that the Jews began to entertain these ideas.

 

[Butch5]

"World" and "forever" are the same word? (aion)
That makes no sense.
This world will end, and the tares of the parable will burn.

I agree it makes no sense. But, they are the same Greek word in those passages. What does that tell us? Why would the translators change forever to world in those verses? It's obvious. The speakers said it would end. You can't have something lasting to the end of forever. That doesn't make sense. What does that tell us? It tells us that the translators theology is driving their interpretation. They're wrong when the translate the word aion as forever.

The world has an end.
Any suffering the "tares" will experience cannot be measured with time.
The only folks that would be interested in such information are those that know their end will not be pretty, and they hope it is over fast.
But the measuring of time will end.
It is written..."And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:" (Rev 10:6)

If we live with the love for God and for our fellow men in our hearts, we will not be concerned about what the disobedient haters of God receive.

We should care because it impugns God's character. The Bible says God is love. Many Christians say God tortures and torments people in fire for eternity. It's kind of difficult to reconcile that idea with a God who is love. Consider how many people are turned off to the Gospel because they think Christians worship a God who tortures and torments people forever. What kind of witnesses are we if we are misrepresenting God?

 

[Butch5]

I have heard this before and it is really silly. Jesus dying agony where every word was extremely painful (the word "excruciating" comes from this form of death) added extra unnecessary words like telling the thief that he was talking to him today, not yesterday and not tomorrow. He was actually telling a dying man something that would not be of very much comfort as in "thousands of years in the future you will be with me."

It seems everything that disproves your position is silly. It's not silly if you sit down and think about it. The words aren't unnecessary. It's actually an act of compassion. The thief was in agony, as you point out. In addition to the physical agony he had mental anguish. Here this man recognizes that Jesus is the Christ. He's hanging beside the one who will judge him at the coming judgment. He can spend his last hours wondering if he will make it into the kingdom {remember, that is what he asked Jesus. He didn't ask Jesus where they would be later that day) Jesus could have let that man die not knowing whether or not he'd make it into the kingdom. But, He doesn't. In His compassion for the dying man, Jesus renders His judgment right there on the spot. 'I tell you today', you don't have to wait until judgment day to find out if you'll make it into the Kingdom, I'm telling you today, that you will be in the Kingdom. They're not wasted words, they're words of great compassion. And, what did Jesus tell him? Did He say the thief would be with Him in Heaven? No. He told him he'd be with Him in the Garden.

You never heard of the flood that destroyed the earth?

That was quite a while after the angel was placed at garden.

Everything is said right in Scripture but you are not rightly saying what Scripture says.

That's funny because what I'm saying comes right out of Scripture. I'm still waiting for Scripture that teaches man lives on after death.

 

[Butch5]

I got news for you, the Greeks were not the only ones who thought the body left after death. The Hebrews did as well as many other people groups. The Greeks did not invent it.

Paul did not refer to nakedness, a state of the body, as the church. There are so many holes in this thinking both intellectually as well as scripturally.

Another straw man. I didn't say the Greek invented it. I said it was the prevailing belief among the Greeks in New Testament times. It's funny how many Christians have the same hope as the Greeks, the Gnostics, the Egyptians and many other of the pagan religions. It's even more amazing that they can't prove this doctrine from Scripture.

And, as I said, the Hebrews began to dabble in this during the Babylonian captivity. Christians would do well to study their history. Trying to interpret a text written thousands of years ago, in a different culture, in a different language, in a different geological climate, with a 21 century Greek mindset isn't as easy as many think it is.

 

[Hopeful]

I agree it makes no sense. But, they are the same Greek word in those passages. What does that tell us? Why would the translators change forever to world in those verses? It's obvious. The speakers said it would end. You can't have something lasting to the end of forever. That doesn't make sense. What does that tell us? It tells us that the translators theology is driving their interpretation. They're wrong when the translate the word aion as forever.

We should care because it impugns God's character. The Bible says God is love. Many Christians say God tortures and torments people in fire for eternity. It's kind of difficult to reconcile that idea with a God who is love. Consider how many people are turned off to the Gospel because they think Christians worship a God who tortures and torments people forever. What kind of witnesses are we if we are misrepresenting God?

If folks don't want to go to heaven, they won't be forced to go.
The only alternative is the lake of fire.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Another straw man. I didn't say the Greek invented it. I said it was the prevailing belief among the Greeks in New Testament times. It's funny how many Christians have the same hope as the Greeks, the Gnostics, the Egyptians and many other of the pagan religions. It's even more amazing that they can't prove this doctrine from Scripture.

And, as I said, the Hebrews began to dabble in this during the Babylonian captivity. Christians would do well to study their history. Trying to interpret a text written thousands of years ago, in a different culture, in a different language, in a different geological climate, with a 21 century Greek mindset isn't as easy as many think it is.

It’s been around as long as man has been around. Move on.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Hopeful,

I could be wrong but I think a poster mentioned that Butch is a JW. If so, they, like Mormons, redefine words and often often really silly explanations that make no sense. This would fit his posts, but JWs aren’t the only who do this.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I have heard this before and it is really silly. Jesus dying agony where every word was extremely painful (the word "excruciating" comes from this form of death) added extra unnecessary words like telling the thief that he was talking to him today, not yesterday and not tomorrow. He was actually telling a dying man something that would not be of very much comfort as in "thousands of years in the future you will be with me."

Yeah. I also thought it was a bit silly having Him say, "I tell you this today. Not yesterday or tomorrow or next week, or the 28th of Nissan, but TODAY, like right now," LoL.

The thief was probably thinking, "It's a good thing he's telling me this today cuz it looks like we've only got a few hours left."

 

[Butch5]

If folks don't want to go to heaven, they won't be forced to go.
The only alternative is the lake of fire.

What us the Lake of Fire? Doesn't Revelation say it is the second death?

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Everyone will be exposed to the lake of fire, because the lake of fire is the presence of God. Believers won't be harmed by him.

 

[T. E. Smith]

It wasn't until the Babylonian captivity that the Jews began to entertain these ideas.

It was a Persian concept.

Hopeful,

I could be wrong but I think a poster mentioned that Butch is a JW. If so, they, like Mormons, redefine words and often often really silly explanations that make no sense. This would fit his posts, but JWs aren’t the only who do this.

Yeah, I would not trust that as accurate unless Butch said it himself. Some Christians love to call other Christians JWs, Mormons, Catholics (?), etc.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

It was a Persian concept.

Yeah, I would not trust that as accurate unless Butch said it himself. Some Christians love to call other Christians JWs, Mormons, Catholics (?), etc.

I don’t mean it as an accusation but merely a help as to how the other thinks. Some groups are trained in specific ways to think or discuss. Those who redefine words are not the intellectually honest ones.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

What us the Lake of Fire? Doesn't Revelation say it is the second death?

It says death and the grave being cast into the lake of fire is the 2nd death, because they no longer exist. It's God himself that destroys them,

O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: Hos.13:14

a fire shall devour before him Psa.50:3

 

[Butch5]

It’s been around as long as man has been around. Move on.

You side step every tough issue. People notice that. No offense, but this is one reason Christians are ineffective in witnessing to the lost. When they're pressed with a hard issues they can't answer.