Hell Fire

[dadof10]

Didn't Origen also teach that Christ was subordinate to the Father? So he got two doctrines wrong.

Not sure about that one, but Origen also taught the pre-existence of the soul before being joined to the body at conception (rather than God creating one at conception).

Regards

Joe,

You are right (like usual). As I said, it was from memory. Here is part of an article from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Along with these perfectly orthodox texts there are some which must be interpreted with diligence, remembering as we ought that the language of theology was not yet fixed and that Origen was often the first to face these difficult problems. It will then appear that the subordination of the Divine Persons, so much urged against Origen, generally consists in differences of appropriation (the Father creator, the Son redeemer, the Spirit sanctifier) which seem to attribute to the Persons an unequal sphere of action, or in the liturgical practice of praying the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost, or in the theory so widespread in the Greek Church of the first five centuries, that the Father has a pre-eminence of rank (taxis) over the two other Persons, inasmuch as in mentioning them He ordinarily has the first place, and of dignity (axioma) because He represents the whole Divinity, of which He is the principle (arche), the origin (aitios), and the source (pege). That is why St. Athanasius defends Origen's orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus replied to the heretics who claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.

If it's good enough for these three giants of orthodoxy, it's good enough for me.

 

[LostSoul]

General knowledge from history and historic fact.

If this was truly the case there would have been no need for Jesus to come. That fact that both the Pharisees and Sadducees put heavy burdens on people based on their restrictive outlook and knowledge of the Law and prophets is one of the main reasons Jesus needed to come.

The fact that these people that considered it "law breaking" to heal a crippled man on the sabbath should tell you something about their outlook and beliefs.

RND,

I know not where you learned or gathered what information you did, but I will politely disagree with your views.

In terms of the healing on the Sabbath....the Hebrews or Jews had long been commanded to keep the Sabbath holy which meant not to work or the like. So with their strict observance of the Torah or law of Moses, it would make sense why they were so against it. Seeing as both groups, the Sadducees and Pharisees seemed to concern themselves more with traditionalism and their own holiness, or power. Just my thoughts....

Here is what information I have on the Sadducees and Pharisees which can also be found in text of a book called:The New Testament which was part of my curiculum during some of my studies in the field of Religion.

Sadducees - Jesus' chief opponents and typically members of the JEWISH upper class. Wealthy landowning aristocrats who largely controlled the priesthood and the Temple. Their name in Greek, Saddoukaioi, and Hebrew, Zaddukim or Tsaddiqim, means "Righteous Ones." The Sadducees were also thought to have acted as the mediators between the Romans and the Jewish people. As beneficiaries of he Roman-maintained political order, the Sadducees had the most to lose from civil disorder adn typically opposed Jewish nationalism that might to overthrow the status quo. They did adopt Hellenistic customs and their friendship with the Romans made it possible for them to manipulate some Palestinian political affairs. They praciiced the literal reading of the Torah, rejecting the Pharisees' "oral law" and other interpretations of the biblical text. They did not share the Pharisees' beliefs about coming judgement, ressurection, angels, or demons.

Mark 12:18 (King James Version)

18Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

Acts 23:8 (King James Version)

8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.


Pharisees - Jesus' leading opponents also believed to have been depicted as hypocrites, heartless in their legalism. They were also the ones in which oversaw the Jewish Synagogues. Pharisees were completely devoted to the teachings of the Mosaic Torah and its application to all the concerns of daily life. The meaning of the name, Pharisees in the Hebrew tongue, is "to separate." This was likely on account of their attempts to separate themselves from the growing Hellenistic culture, and as result rigorously observed the code of ritual purity.

There is more I could share about both groups, but seeing the length and detail it would surely make this post more longer than it already is. Which I feel it is already questionably too close to being too long.

For if Jesus did not come for His own people and to save the world from their sin, what did He come for? To prove some religious leaders wrong? For I do believe Jesus, Himself even quotes His purpose in being there on various occassions.

I could be wrong....I will not deny...but I will not lie and say that my interpretation or studies have lead me to the same conclusion.

Nonetheless, I respect your views. Just find them imposible for me to share.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[St Francis]

Surely you are not suggesting that there were no other men in all of Israel that were named Lazarus are you? What clue do you use to determine that Jesus was speaking of His friend?

Hey, there were lots of guys named Jesus too. Maybe the Bible is talking about some other guy sometimes when it talks about a Jesus. <<rolls eyes>>

 

[LostSoul]

Hey, there were lots of guys named Jesus too. Maybe the Bible is talking about some other guy sometimes when it talks about a Jesus. <<rolls eyes>>

Let us not get angry with one another okay?

 

[francisdesales]

"Along with these perfectly orthodox texts there are some which must be interpreted with diligence, remembering as we ought that the language of theology was not yet fixed and that Origen was often the first to face these difficult problems. It will then appear that the subordination of the Divine Persons, so much urged against Origen, generally consists in differences of appropriation (the Father creator, the Son redeemer, the Spirit sanctifier) which seem to attribute to the Persons an unequal sphere of action, or in the liturgical practice of praying the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost, or in the theory so widespread in the Greek Church of the first five centuries, that the Father has a pre-eminence of rank (taxis) over the two other Persons, inasmuch as in mentioning them He ordinarily has the first place, and of dignity (axioma) because He represents the whole Divinity, of which He is the principle (arche), the origin (aitios), and the source (pege). That is why St. Athanasius defends Origen's orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus replied to the heretics who claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.

If it's good enough for these three giants of orthodoxy, it's good enough for me.

No doubt, Origen was a genius in interpretating Scriptures, but he certainly was influenced in some degree the school of Scriptural interpretation he came from - the Alexandrian school, being a famous pupil of St. Clement. Not surprising, we all have a background in a particular way of looking at Scriptures. Perhaps his Neo-Platonistic leaning went too far for the Church (pre-existence of the soul was a Platonic idea), but he certainly did provide a tremendous amount of commentary for us to help us learn more about God.

Regards

 

[Paidion]

Didn't Origen also teach that Christ was subordinate to the Father? So he got two doctrines wrong.

Or he got both doctrines right!

Jesus Himself stated his subordination to the Father.

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

 

[Rick W]

And I am greater than my word for my word comes from me.

Hey, sounds like the beginnings of another thread doesn't it? ;)

 

[duval]

Sounds like it to me. Not much being said about "hell Fire."

 

[LostSoul]

Sounds like it to me. Not much being said about "hell Fire."

My appologies, got a little side tracked. However, I do intend to look into scripture a little more in terms of Hell...for I know though others may not interpret the passages in the same light...that it is mentioned at least roughly.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[dadof10]

Didn't Origen also teach that Christ was subordinate to the Father? So he got two doctrines wrong.

Or he got both doctrines right!

Jesus Himself stated his subordination to the Father.

John 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

And His equality with Him.

The Jews then said to him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" 58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
59 So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. (John (RSV) 8)

Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" 29 Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." (John (RSV) 20)

As I wrote above to Francisdesales, I was wrong about Origen's take on the Divinity of Christ, my memory isn't what it used to be. While researching, I found this quote from him:

"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225])."

There are many more quotes from the Fathers that teach the divinity of Christ, and the existence of Hell, for that matter. I was not able to find any from Origen that teaches his belief in the existence of Hell, however, there is this from Catholic Encyclopedia:

He affirms, for instance, that the charity of the elect in heaven does not fail; in their case "the freedom of the will will be bound so that sin will be impossible" (In Roman., V, 10). So, too, the reprobate will always be fixed in evil, less from the inability to free themselves from it, than because they wish to be evil (De Principiis I.8.4), for malice has become natural to them, it is as a second nature in them (In Joann., xx, 19). Origen grew angry when accused of teaching the eternal salvation of the devil. But the hypotheses which he lays down here and there are none the less worthy of censure. What can be said in his defence, if it be not with St. Athanasius (De decretis Nic., 27), that we must not seek to find his real opinion in the works in which he discusses the arguments for and against doctrine as an intellectual exercise or amusement; or, with St. Jerome (Ad Pammach. Epist., XLVIII, 12), that it is one thing to dogmatize and another to enunciate hypothetical opinions which will be cleared up by discussion?

I don't know how much of this you'll accept, but for what it's worth....

 

[LostSoul]

BACK TO THE SUBJECT OF HELL FIRE......


Looking more in to scripture of BOTH OT and NT text.....I thought once again I would share some passages. Likely a number of these may have already been shared by myself or someone else here. Nonetheless, they as always are open for discussion and interpretation.

One of the first things I notice....is that the doorway to righteousness, or Heaven is narrow. This could imply that a large number are in danger of, or possibly going to go to Hell.

Matthew 7:13 (New International Version) "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."


Another thing is that PERHAPS Satan DOES indeed have dominion over Hell. For who would we need to fear in Hell that could do this?

Matthew 10:28 (New International Version) Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.


God too will not only KNOW what is His, but will separate those that are His and those that are not. In other words, God will take those who accepted and know Him to take to Heaven. Those who do not, or refused to know Him will be cast into the fiery furnace....as some depict....including myself.....to be Hell.

Matthew 13:38-42 (New International Version) The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:49-50 (New International Version) This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.


Those who knew not God will suffer ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. Those who did ETERNAL LIFE.

Matthew 25:46 (New International Version) 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."


So too will those in Hell be SHUT OUT from God's presense.

2nd Thessalonians 1:9 (New International Version) 2TH 1:9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

If need be I will elaborate more on my views through scripture. Seeing as this post is getting a little long I will pause for now.

 

[RND]

Who else could He be referring to, and why was this name the ONLY name Jesus used in a parable ever? What makes you think that He used the name to mean "helpless"?

Who said Jesus had to be referring to a "specific" person? The name Lazarus the Greek equivalent of "Eleazar" which is Hebrew for "God (is) helper" as in needing a helper, helpless without God. In the parable Lazarus is helpless.

You need to actually start reading what people post. Here is the conversation we are having on this point and your response makes no sense:

Huh? I was responding to your ridiculous notion that Jesus ONLY spoke in parables to the Pharisees, not what was or was not being conveyed. This is getting frustrating. Could you please try to actually read what i write and respond to it?

The verses of Luke 16:14-18 are "cryptic" in a way and specifically point out what Jesus is trying to tell (convey) the Pharisees. Verse 18 specifically says to the Pharisees that they have been "adulterous" to the word of God. This is not different that other areas of scripture that call the Israelites adulterous to the word of God.

Do you disagree?

I have no opinion since there is nothing in the parable that would suggest "anyone or anything" sent the two respective parties to their mythical destinations! One would have to assume facts not in evidence.

So, you are sticking with the "cartoonist notion" defense, with no further explanation of why this one parable is "cartoonist" and all the other parables are not? No explanation of why nowhere else in all of Scripture do we find any other "cartoonist" parables where "pagan notions" are used and not debunked. No explanation of this new method of Biblical criticism? I understand. I couldn't defend this silly position either. Better to just keep repeating "I already have".

No, many times I have explained that there is "nothing" absolutely "nothing" in the OT (Torah and Tanahk) that would explain the theory of "eternally burning hell." There is nothing that could possible confirm that "angels" take dead people anywhere.

Let me rephrase:

SDA: People die and enter into "soul-sleep". At the resurrection they are raised and judged. If they are damned, they are thrown into the "lake of fire" and are annihilated. They are not tormented for eternity, only until their annihilation is completed.

Parable: When people die they go to either Abraham's Bosom or Hades immediately. If they are damned they are tormented.

This is the contrast between SDA theology and the Truth. Of course you have to make the claim that this is cartoon-like, if you accept it as true your entire view of the afterlife goes up in smoke (pun intended).

No doubt some SDA's belief this. I of course believe the "lake of fire" is a metaphor and not an actual lake made of molten lava or fire.

I don't actually expect to get an answer, but I'll ask anyway. How so?

Because as I have said many times before there is nothing in the Torah or Tanahk that say anything about "eternally burning hell." It simply isn't anything taught in the law and prophets. The Pharisees should have known this. Jesus was openly "mocking" there pagan beliefs.

Where in the OT are the "five blood brothers of Judah" referenced? NOWHERE.

Are you able to deduce these things on your own? Have you ever heard of the term "half-brother" or "half-sister?"

Gen 35:23 The sons of Leah; Reuben (1), Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon (2), and Levi (3), and Judah (4), and Issachar (5), and Zebulun (6):

Gen 35:24 The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin:

Gen 35:25 And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali:

Gen 35:26 And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these [are] the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram.

Surely you can clearly see that Judah only had "full blooded" relationship with five (5) others. All of Judahs other siblings were "half" brothers.

You are trying to draw a false parallel. What makes you think that the rich man is supposed to symbolize Judah?

Isn't it obvious?

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? 2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

Why not Rueben, he was the first born?

Reuben defiled his father's bed.

1 Ch 5:1 Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel, (for he [was] the firstborn; but, forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given unto the sons of Joseph the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright.

The five blood brothers of Judah....Give me a break.

Again, if you have anything to offer regarding this that could possibly show a different connection I'd love to see it. Otherwise, if all you can offer is squibs of "Give me a break" I'll have to conclude you have no desire to explore this. Or you could just take your priest or pastor's word for it!

The reference means that the rich man had five brothers. There's no need to try and find some hidden meaning in every detail of every parable. There are many parables that use detail just to make the story more interesting.

You're kidding right? There isn't a word spoken of by Jesus and that was recorded by the disciples that doesn't have any meaning behind it. The fact that you can honestly suggest that "no need to try and find some hidden meaning in every detail of every parable" is theologically lazy.

I can't, that's the point. There is no reference to any "five brothers" anywhere, which means either this was an actual person who died and the people who Jesus was speaking to knew who He was talking about, or it was a literary device to make the story more interesting. To try and stretch this to mean the rich man is supposed to symbolize Judah is futile.

There is clearly a reference to "five brothers" and I showed you where it was. The fact that you think that Pharisees wouldn't have known this things tells me you have put much thought in these things or have had these things revealed to you.

Yes, it means the man had five brothers. There is no hidden meaning.

Theological laziness.

Let me give you another parable from Luke to compare:

[/quote]

Luke 14:16-24

What is symbolized by the five yolk of oxen? Nothing.

Ox are beasts of burden. Five "yoke of oxen" would actually equal 10 oxes (two per yoke). How many tribes were taken away captive initially? 10.

Deu 22:1 Thou shalt not see thy brother's ox or his sheep go astray, and hide thyself from them: thou shalt in any case bring them again unto thy brother.

What does the field symbolize? Nothing.

The "field" always, always represents the "world."

Mat 13:38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one];

What about the wife? Nothing.

Who or what is Jesus betrothed to?

2Cr 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.

Eph 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

They are just there to give examples of people who are too bound up in the world to come to the banquet. There is no hidden meaning in all examples within a parable.

There is deep meaning, sometimes many, many different meanings in every word spoken by Christ. That's the beauty of the word of God.

I didn't mean you made up the fact that Leah had five sons by Jacob and one of them was named Judah, I meant that you made up that the "five blood brothers" was EVER used in the OT to symbolize Judah, either the man or the Southern Kingdom.

It's self-explanatory isn't it?

So, let me get this straight. Judah has the "Word of God" and is only letting the "crumbs" get to the "helpless"? Is this the symbolism so far? Could you keep going, please? I'm curious as to how this fits in with the other things in the parable.

Wow! You're finally coming to it! Remarkable! Praise the Lord! Read Matthew 15 and you'll see this connection as well.

It doesn't just go someplace by itself. All is done by the power of God. Stop mischaracterizing ALL religion in an attempt to support your own.

The point is is that the "soul" goes "somewhere." The fact that most religions believe this is contrary to the Torah and Tanahk.

I notice you said "Only the Old Testament teaches...". The NT teaches Heaven or Hell, then? Certainly Jesus does in this parable.

There is nothing in the New Testament that teaches man roasts without mercy for eternity.

*EDIT* There is also this OT reference to the spirit "returning to the God that gave it":

Spirit=breath. The "breath" returns to God.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Job 27:3 All the while my breath [is] in me, and the spirit of God [is] in my nostrils;

 

[RND]

RND,

I know not where you learned or gathered what information you did, but I will politely disagree with your views.

You are free to believe anything you wish regarding what I believe.

In terms of the healing on the Sabbath....the Hebrews or Jews had long been commanded to keep the Sabbath holy which meant not to work or the like. So with their strict observance of the Torah or law of Moses, it would make sense why they were so against it. Seeing as both groups, the Sadducees and Pharisees seemed to concern themselves more with traditionalism and their own holiness, or power. Just my thoughts....

Then why the need for all the instruction that Jesus gave regarding the sabbath if it wasn't needed?

For if Jesus did not come for His own people and to save the world from their sin, what did He come for? To prove some religious leaders wrong? For I do believe Jesus, Himself even quotes His purpose in being there on various occassions.

Then what was the necessity for His teaching? If He came "only" to save from sin there would be no need to "teach" and instruct.

I could be wrong....I will not deny...but I will not lie and say that my interpretation or studies have lead me to the same conclusion.

Jesus came to save the world from sin. Part of that "saving" process involved instruction, que no?

Nonetheless, I respect your views. Just find them imposible for me to share.

Thanks.

 

[RND]

Hey, there were lots of guys named Jesus too. Maybe the Bible is talking about some other guy sometimes when it talks about a Jesus. <<rolls eyes>>

I think everything that involves the "Messiah" is fairly specific.

 

[RND]

Looking more in to scripture of BOTH OT and NT text.....I thought once again I would share some passages. Likely a number of these may have already been shared by myself or someone else here. Nonetheless, they as always are open for discussion and interpretation.

One of the first things I notice....is that the doorway to righteousness, or Heaven is narrow. This could imply that a large number are in danger of, or possibly going to go to Hell.

Matthew 7:13 (New International Version) "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

Is there anything that describes that this verse is specifically referring to "eternally burning hell?" The word for "destruction" apoleia simply means "ruin or loss."

[quote:3cll4o4g]Another thing is that PERHAPS Satan DOES indeed have dominion over Hell. For who would we need to fear in Hell that could do this?

Matthew 10:28 (New International Version) Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

God too will not only KNOW what is His, but will separate those that are His and those that are not. In other words, God will take those who accepted and know Him to take to Heaven. Those who do not, or refused to know Him will be cast into the fiery furnace....as some depict....including myself.....to be Hell.

Matthew 13:38-42 (New International Version) The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one,39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. 40 "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 13:49-50 (New International Version) This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous 50 and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Satan was kicked out from among the presence of the fiery stones and only the righteous can dwell among fire.

Eze 28:14 Thou [art] the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee [so]: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings? 15 He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil; 16 He shall dwell on high: his place of defence [shall be] the munitions of rocks: bread shall be given him; his waters [shall be] sure.

Those who knew not God will suffer ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. Those who did ETERNAL LIFE.

Matthew 25:46 (New International Version) 46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Eternal punishment as in "the decision is final" not eternal punishingas in roasting forever.

So too will those in Hell be SHUT OUT from God's presense.

2nd Thessalonians 1:9 (New International Version) 2TH 1:9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

Nothing here about "eternal roasting" in flames.

If need be I will elaborate more on my views through scripture. Seeing as this post is getting a little long I will pause for now.

[/quote:3cll4o4g]

I think what would be helpful is posting specific scriptures that seem to suggest roasting forever.

 

[LostSoul]

Though these passages may not speak for certain of eternal roasting....they do pose the question of the posibility themselves. Or at least the windows of various interpretation. All found within the book of Revelation which is rather mysterious and open to all sorts of interpretation.

Revelation 1:2 (New International Version) 2 When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the
Abyss.

In reading this it does depict Hell or the Abyss, even Hades as a very humid, perhaps even dry and fiery place.

Revelation 14:11 (New International Version) 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for
anyone who receives the mark of his name."

This implies that perhaps Satan, false prophets, and even his followers will endure eternal burning or torment for their sins against the Father during the days of final tribulation before the last separation of the wicked and the righteous.

Here also goes into a little more detail about all who will likely be thrown into Hell, even so far as Death itself.

Revelation 20:10 (New International Version) And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They
will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Revelation 20:13-15 (New International Version) 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of
fire is the second death.15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was
thrown into the lake of fire.

Again as I said before...this could be open to likely other forms of interpretation.

May God Bless You

Danielle

 

[duval]

LOSTLAMB: Only by those who do not like what the Bible teaches would interpret it otherwise.

 

[RND]

Though these passages may not speak for certain of eternal roasting....they do pose the question of the posibility themselves. Or at least the windows of various interpretation.

Hardly. The verses you mentioned, all of them, refer to certain "eternal punishment" not eternal punish"ing." None of the verses you quoted mention is certain continual "eternal roasting" and seem quite contradictory of all the scriptures that talk of God's anger being "for a moment" and that His "mercy endures forever."

I'm not looking for any verses that "suggest" a possibility of anything, I am looking for verses that without a doubt say that "mortal" man lives forever in the continual torture of flames.

All found within the book of Revelation which is rather mysterious and open to all sorts of interpretation.

Is Jesus in hell watching people being burned and "eternally tortured?" Revelation 14 seems to "suggest" that is what is happening.

Revelation 1:2 (New International Version) 2 When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.

In reading this it does depict Hell or the Abyss, even Hades as a very humid, perhaps even dry and fiery place.

Rev 1:2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.

Not too sure which verse in Revelation you may be quoting here.

Revelation 14:11 (New International Version) 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

This implies that perhaps Satan, false prophets, and even his followers will endure eternal burning or torment for their sins against the Father during the days of final tribulation before the last separation of the wicked and the righteous.

Verse 10 can be interpreted to suggest that Jesus and the angels are in hell watching people burn.

Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Again, I'm not looking for "implications" I am looking for EXACT language and SURE proof that men will roast forever. And yet, Rev, 14:11 says nothing about Satan, the False Prophet but simply those "who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

Here also goes into a little more detail about all who will likely be thrown into Hell, even so far as Death itself.

Revelation 20:10 (New International Version) And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The "devil", the "beast" and the "false prophet" are the ones that are "tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Revelation 20:13-15 (New International Version) 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Again as I said before...this could be open to likely other forms of interpretation.

In these verses you quoted none suggest that people will roast and toast forever. In fact, verses 14 and 15 indicate clearly that being thrown into the lake of fire causes a "second" death not a "continual" death.

 

[RND]

LOSTLAMB: Only by those who do not like what the Bible teaches would interpret it otherwise.

Likewise, those that are allergic to the truth and that assume the lies that Satan has told about God continually torturing people to be true are likely to interpret scripture to suit their beliefs. What is interesting is that I have yet to see anyone attempt to answer any of the questions asked in the OP, not one.

• If Hell is real, if God hates the sinner, does the sinner do wrong in hating Him?

• If Hell is real, if God loves His enemies now, will he not always love them? Is God a changeable being? (James 1:17)

• If Hell is real, is it just for God to be "kind to the evil and unthankful," in their present life? (Luke 6:35) Would it be unjust for God to be kind to all men in a future state?

• If Hell is real, if all men justly deserve endless punishment, will not those who are saved, be saved unjustly?

• If Hell is real, would it be merciful in God to inflict endless punishment--that is, merciful to the sufferer?

• If Hell is real, if the demands of divine justice are opposed to the requirements of mercy, is not God divided against Himself? If the requirements of mercy are opposed to the demands of the justice of God, can His kingdom stand? -- (Mark 3:24)

• If Hell is real, does not judgment triumph over mercy and thus contradict this Scripture? (James 2:13)

• If Hell is real, if you had sufficient power would you not deliver all men from sin? If God WOULD save all men, but CANNOT , is He infinite in power?

• If Hell is real, if God CAN save all men, but WILL NOT , is He infinite in goodness?

• If Hell is real and created by God, does it not stand against God's DESIRE the salvation of all men? (1 Tim. 2:3-4) Since God is righteous, must not the desire for universal salvation be a RIGHTEOUS desire? Is it true, that "the desire of the righteous shall be granted?" -- (Prov. 10:24)

• If Hell is real, would endless misery benefit the Almighty, as the INFLICTOR ? Would endless misery benefit the saints, as SPECTATORS ? Would endless misery benefit the sinner, as the SUFFERER ?

• If Hell is real and endless punishment is the "wages of sin," could the sinner ever receive payment in full? (Rom. 6:23)

• If Hell is real and sin is infinite, can it be true that, "where sin abounded grace did MUCH MORE abound?" --(Rom. 5:20)

• If Hell is real, if ONE sin deserves an eternity of punishment, how much punishment will TEN sins deserve?

 

[LostSoul]

LOSTLAMB: Only by those who do not like what the Bible teaches would interpret it otherwise.

Hmmm....this makes me ponder.....because I know there are passages in the Bible that can be a bit cryptic and take some time to understand. Not that I am saying there are not people out there that argue against the very word of the Bible and call themselves Christians....but....still.....

Now that I have said that.....I am going to venture back on topic.