HELL

[DM]

Turnorburn's last response to Orion mentions the words "immortal soul". This expression is just as foreign to the biblical authors as is the "orthodox" concept of hell.

The "soul" of the wicked is destined for destruction. As Jesus warned his hearers, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matthew 10:28)

Turnorburn is overlooking the fact that the soul is in danger of perishing. The unbiblical view that the "soul" is somehow separate from (i.e. exists apart from) the body, and therefore supposedly eternal, occurs due to the neo-Platonism that has influenced western thought over the centuries. The biblical claim, on the other hand, is that human beings are animated life-forms comprised of "dust from the ground" and "the breath of life" (cf. Genesis 2:7). What gives life as we know and experience it is the "breath" of God, which is the literal meaning of "spirit". The Latin word "spiritus" means, literally, "breath", or "wind". In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word "ruach" means the same, and likewise the New Testament Greek word "pneuma" is rendered into English also as "spirit".

It is this "breath" (spirit) that animates life in the present age. Whether animal or human, the same "breath" (spirit) is what is allowing us to live and move and have our being at the moment. When this "breath" (spirit) ceases giving life to our flesh, then our flesh dies. The flesh will return to the ground from which it came, and the breath of God (spirit) will go back to Him who gave it. (cf. Ecclesiastes 12:7).

This is precisely why the biblical metaphor for death is the English word "sleep". Just as when one lets their head hit the pillow at night - they anticipate waking up the next morning, so also when we die - we can anticipate being raised from the dead. This hope of resurrection is the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. (cf. Acts 4:1-2, 33 / 13:32-33 / 24:14-15 / 26:8).

Turnorburn's theology (and by extension much of orthodox Christianity) makes the resurrection of the unjust an awkward if not welcome leave of absence away from their "eternal" home of hell. Again, the judgment of God on the wicked is their own destruction. (cf. Phil. 3:18-19 / 2 Thess. 1:9).

Grace and peace.
David

 

[turnorburn]

Let me guess, your one of those that doesn't believe in a hell either? With fire etc.

The Bible continually warns of a place called hell. There are over 162 references in the New Testament alone which warns of hell. And over 70 of these references were uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ!

In Luke 16, Jesus Christ gives a frightening picture of hell:

22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)
HELL IS A PLACE OF FIRE

 

[DM]

Turnorburn,

The passage in Luke 16 you referenced has nothing to do with any place called hell, in my opinion. The Greek word employed in that passage is "hades", which is equivelant to the Hebrew word "sheol" (which is typically transliterated into English as "hell").

Here's why I believe you're incorrect in your interpretation of the text. Both men in the story of the rich man and Lazarus "die". In the case of Lazarus, it is said that he "was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom;" upon his death (Luke 16:22). Of the rich man, it is said that he "also died and was buried". It seems apparent to me from the account which follows, that this is not a literal historical record of these two individuals, but rather a parable. The point of the parable is found in the last two verses. "But he (rich man) said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' But he (Abraham) said to him (rich man), 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

This is a Jewish story, about two Jewish men. In the case of the rich man this is obvious since he refers to Abraham as 'father' in verse 30. In the case of Lazarus, because he is regarded as being at Abraham's bosom in verse 22.

Those who were hearing this parable included some Pharisees (cf. Luke 16:14). The aim of the story of the rich man and Lazarus was directed straight to their ears. The indictment Jesus puts on them is their failure to believe that he has been sent from God, and that even upon his forth-coming resurrection, they still will not believe. Jesus illustrates this point in the story about the rich man and Lazarus because of the specific emphasis on resurrection in the story. At the end of the story, Abraham points out the unbelief of the figurative "five brothers", that they would not be persuaded "even if someone rises from the dead". Of course, Jesus himself would go on to do to rise from the dead, and the Pharisees still would not believe even then.

Your interpretation, that this is a passage about hell, would require that every parable Jesus ever said be an actual historical account. This just isn't the case. Moreover, your interpretation is flawed, I believe, because of what we see in Mark 9:43-47. In that passage, Jesus says things like, "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into Gehenna."

With your method of interpretation, we must assume that some people will enter God's kingdom with only one literal eye-ball. Or perhaps with a missing limb. If you disagree, you need to explain it carefully because from what you've said on this forum, I can conclude nothing else about what you must believe on the matter.

Grace and peace,
David

 

[turnorburn]

There you go again with "your opinion" one day that will jump up and...

But look at it this way, you have absolutely "nothing to fear" about hell "if you know Jesus" Why not go straight for the meat and potatoes, do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ?

Turnorburn,

The passage in Luke 16 you referenced has nothing to do with any place called hell, in my opinion. The Greek word employed in that passage is "hades", which is equivelant to the Hebrew word "sheol" (which is typically transliterated into English as "hell").

Here's why I believe you're incorrect in your interpretation of the text. Both men in the story of the rich man and Lazarus "die". In the case of Lazarus, it is said that he "was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom;" upon his death (Luke 16:22). Of the rich man, it is said that he "also died and was buried". It seems apparent to me from the account which follows, that this is not a literal historical record of these two individuals, but rather a parable. The point of the parable is found in the last two verses. "But he (rich man) said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' But he (Abraham) said to him (rich man), 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

This is a Jewish story, about two Jewish men. In the case of the rich man this is obvious since he refers to Abraham as 'father' in verse 30. In the case of Lazarus, because he is regarded as being at Abraham's bosom in verse 22.

Those who were hearing this parable included some Pharisees (cf. Luke 16:14). The aim of the story of the rich man and Lazarus was directed straight to their ears. The indictment Jesus puts on them is their failure to believe that he has been sent from God, and that even upon his forth-coming resurrection, they still will not believe. Jesus illustrates this point in the story about the rich man and Lazarus because of the specific emphasis on resurrection in the story. At the end of the story, Abraham points out the unbelief of the figurative "five brothers", that they would not be persuaded "even if someone rises from the dead". Of course, Jesus himself would go on to do to rise from the dead, and the Pharisees still would not believe even then.

Your interpretation, that this is a passage about hell, would require that every parable Jesus ever said be an actual historical account. This just isn't the case. Moreover, your interpretation is flawed, I believe, because of what we see in Mark 9:43-47. In that passage, Jesus says things like, "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into Gehenna."

With your method of interpretation, we must assume that some people will enter God's kingdom with only one literal eye-ball. Or perhaps with a missing limb. If you disagree, you need to explain it carefully because from what you've said on this forum, I can conclude nothing else about what you must believe on the matter.

Grace and peace,
David

 

[DM]

Turnorburn.

Your sarcasm and attempts to be witty do not persuade me to your point of view.

The reason you resort to this behavior, apparently, is because you are unable to biblically defend your own opinions. How are your opinions more persuasive in light of the biblical data?

For three straight posts now, you have promoted extrabiblical concepts that steer away from the gospel of Jesus Christ. The most recent is your use of the phrase "personal relationship". There is no Scripture that uses this phrase either. To believe in Jesus is to be persuaded of his message.

John 17:20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in me through their word."

But I digress, the topic is hell . . . which this discussion is becoming.

Sincerely,
David

The message of the gospel is the power unto salvation.

 

[turnorburn]

If personal relationship has nothing to do with it the why did Jesus say unless he knew you? that spells personal to me. As far as persuade you no such intent, I don't have an analytical mind, and I wouldn't know where to begin. Besides by
the time I had filled a page with great swelling words I'd have to take a nap : If sarcasm is what you think what reason would I have, you have already demonstrated your IQ to be beyond my grasp. And last, can't you show your elders a little respect, you have mine, your a bright boy!

Turnorburn.

Your sarcasm and attempts to be witty do not persuade me to your point of view.

The reason you resort to this behavior, apparently, is because you are unable to biblically defend your own opinions. How are your opinions more persuasive in light of the biblical data?

For three straight posts now, you have promoted extrabiblical concepts that steer away from the gospel of Jesus Christ. The most recent is your use of the phrase "personal relationship". There is no Scripture that uses this phrase either. To believe in Jesus is to be persuaded of his message.

John 17:20 "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in me through their word."

But I digress, the topic is hell . . . which this discussion is becoming.

Sincerely,
David

The message of the gospel is the power unto salvation.

 

[DM]

Turnorburn, I'm thankful that at last you've acknowledged what the Scriptures mean "to you".

. . . that spells personal to me.

That God and Jesus can "know" of us, is one thing. To know God, however, is know Him by faith through our loving actions toward others. As God Himself has said, "He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; Then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me? Declares the LORD." (Jeremiah 22:16)

You don't know God or Jesus "personally", turnorburn, since you've never met either one "personally". All you think you know is whatever you have decided to believe (to become persuaded by) - through words about God and Jesus. You "know" Him as He declares you know Him, by you doing righteousness in humility. The same holds true for me, and for all believers.

That God knows us personally, however, I have no doubt.

Peace in Him.
David

 

[mutzrein]

DM

I'm curious that you have no doubt that God knows us personally, but that man does not not know God by the same measure. Surely if you say of someone that they don't know Jesus or God personally since they haven't met them personally, how can God know us personally?

Now I have no doubt that I have a personal relationship with God. I know Him and he knows me since he is my Father and I am his son. I speak with Him and he speaks with me. It's VERY personal really.

 

[turnorburn]

Well its about

When we know him its those things that used to be impossible for us. To love the Lord our God with all of our might and to, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself.. Its been a pleasure guys, and I hope it was for you as well*

In His Service,
turnorburn

 

[DM]

Hi mutz,

Thanks for asking me to clarify, as I should. The phrase "personal relationship" denotes a face-to-face kind of relationship. That is to say, and unmediated experience of God. I don't believe that this is what the Bible reveals.

"But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, . . ." (Galatians 4:9a). The Scriptures also reveal that, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12).

We "know" God, then, through the mediation of the word of God, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Believing the revealed truth about God through the apostles and prophets (Jesus being the chief among them), is as close as we can get "now" to "knowing" God. We know what has been revealed to us, but beyond that we are awaiting the coming of His kingdom and the return of His son. This is what I mean by a mediated experience of God.

Grace and Peace,
David

 

[turnorburn]

I like the secure feeling I get when I'm in his presence is so overwhelming...

 

[mutzrein]

Hi mutz,

Thanks for asking me to clarify, as I should. The phrase "personal relationship" denotes a face-to-face kind of relationship. That is to say, and unmediated experience of God. I don't believe that this is what the Bible reveals.

"But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, . . ." (Galatians 4:9a). The Scriptures also reveal that, "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12).

We "know" God, then, through the mediation of the word of God, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Believing the revealed truth about God through the apostles and prophets (Jesus being the chief among them), is as close as we can get "now" to "knowing" God. We know what has been revealed to us, but beyond that we are awaiting the coming of His kingdom and the return of His son. This is what I mean by a mediated experience of God.

Grace and Peace,
David

DM – my relationship with God has got nothing to do with scripture. The ‘revealed truth about God’ in scripture (as you put it) is not the basis of my relationship with God at all. Now I read and believe scripture and it confirms my relationship with God but it can never bring it about. I know God because he has placed His spirit within me – without any decision on my part, not because of something I have read.

 

[Free]

I am not going to get very involved in this discussion, but I saw a few things that require explanation.

Turnorburn's last response to Orion mentions the words "immortal soul". This expression is just as foreign to the biblical authors as is the "orthodox" concept of hell.

The "soul" of the wicked is destined for destruction. As Jesus warned his hearers, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in Gehenna." (Matthew 10:28)

Turnorburn is overlooking the fact that the soul is in danger of perishing. The unbiblical view that the "soul" is somehow separate from (i.e. exists apart from) the body,

I think you need to read Matthew 10:28 a little more closely as not even a careful reading shows that the death of the body does not result in the death of the soul. So, yes, the soul is somehow separate from the body, as follows from the very Scripture you gave as proof of the opposite.

and therefore supposedly eternal, occurs due to the neo-Platonism that has influenced western thought over the centuries.

Irrelevent. If it's true it's true regardless of whether it's Jewish, Roman, Greek, or whatever. The origin of an idea has little bearing on the truth of that idea.

Turnorburn's theology (and by extension much of orthodox Christianity) makes the resurrection of the unjust an awkward if not welcome leave of absence away from their "eternal" home of hell. Again, the judgment of God on the wicked is their own destruction. (cf. Phil. 3:18-19 / 2 Thess. 1:9).

And what does your theology make of the resurrection of the unjust? Do they resurrect only to immediately die once again? Please share and lets see if your position does any better.

Both men in the story of the rich man and Lazarus "die". In the case of Lazarus, it is said that he "was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom;" upon his death (Luke 16:22). Of the rich man, it is said that he "also died and was buried". It seems apparent to me from the account which follows, that this is not a literal historical record of these two individuals, but rather a parable.

And just how is it a parable? There is nothing at all in the passage to indicate it is a parable. The only reason to think it is if one uses circular reasoning.

Your interpretation, that this is a passage about hell, would require that every parable Jesus ever said be an actual historical account.

Actually, this is not at all the case; I fail to see how you can come to such a conclusion.

As I have stated several times in these forums regarding parables, is that Jesus always used circumstances that were very real (lost sheep, lost coins, seeds, farming, etc...), that the people could identify with in order to get his point across. Indeed, if Jesus had used circumstances which were foreign to the people his parables would have been meaningless.

This would actually substantiate the position that even if the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man was only a parable, the hearers quite possibly could have believed that Hades was merely a temporary abode of the dead in which to await judgement.

This just isn't the case. Moreover, your interpretation is flawed, I believe, because of what we see in Mark 9:43-47. In that passage, Jesus says things like, "If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into Gehenna."

Here, it might be your understanding that is flawed. Jesus could very well have been speaking literally. I won't say why because I want you to put some thought into it.

 

[Radlad72]

free,

With all due respect, it is very important that we don't mix man's traditions with the truth that is in the Bible. That which DM has told us about the origins of the ideas that man has immortal soul is totally relevant because it is fully extra-scriptural and has nothing to do with the facts given to us in the Bible.I am pretty sure that Plato would not have been quoting from the Scriptures with his ideas.

Also,the idea that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable is also correct. ALl you have to do is look in the chapter and verses previous to it that Jesus was in the middle of parable telling so why should this bit suddenly be classed as not a parable? I'll tell you: because people need to find any evidence of an ever-burning hell so badly that they will make things appear to be what they are not. It is most definitely a parable, and the Pharisees, who the parable was aimed at, knew exactly what Jesus was getting at. It had nothing to do with hell and Abraham's bosomas you wouldhave liked it to be about literally. This link will give you an insight into the parabel. Itn is very well researched and written.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Lazarus-byHuie.htm

Don't knock it untill you read and understand.

Rad.

 

[Free]

That which DM has told us about the origins of the ideas that man has immortal soul is totally relevant because it is fully extra-scriptural and has nothing to do with the facts given to us in the Bible.I am pretty sure that Plato would not have been quoting from the Scriptures with his ideas.

As I stated already, the origin of an idea has little to do with whether or not that idea is true.

Also,the idea that the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable is also correct.

Yes, it could be but as I pointed out, it is the content is just as important as the meaning.

ALl you have to do is look in the chapter and verses previous to it that Jesus was in the middle of parable telling so why should this bit suddenly be classed as not a parable?

That is irrelevent to whether the story is a parable or not. If you want to continue with that argument I'm quite sure I could make 90% of the gospels out to be merely parables.

because people need to find any evidence of an ever-burning hell so badly that they will make things appear to be what they are not.

Not only does that have absolutely nothing to do with the my understanding of the passage, I can say that the same goes for those who believe as you do.

 

[turnorburn]

I started this thread with preaching in mind, yours and mine. What intentions do you have for preaching at all if any, is it to the saving of ones soul? This is the reason I put urgency into my message when I preach. Do I see this unrepentant sinner as going into an eternal sleep? "no", annihilation? "no", oblivion? "no"

I see them if you will, headed for a place made for Satan and his angels, "Hell"
Drawing a picture won't help, because you will see what you want to see.
If the unrepentant sinner thinks that you believe Hell will be a piece of cake he'll walk away thinking Ha! no big phew that was close. Do you realize what you have
just done? and this is important! Now they are free to believe a lie, their
conciseness no longer burns, no guilt no worries, no need for a "Savior"
Think about it, none of this matters if your not preaching the gospel, no I
take that back, I can think of someone that cares, it matters to him, he died and rose again, and that same Jesus will be your judge at the Great White Throne.

 

[Orion]

And in what way will I hear God speak to me about this topic? :-?

BTW, you said,

If the unrepentant sinner thinks that you believe Hell will be a piece of cake he'll walk away thinking Ha! no big phew that was close. Do you realize what you have
just done? and this is important! Now they are free to believe a lie, their
conciseness no longer burns, no guilt no worries, no need for a "Savior"

So, you'd be more apt to scare people into a "relationship with God", than to discover what the TRUE meaning of it all is?

 

[turnorburn]

To answer the first part of your question, its not his speaking we have a problem with its the listening once he's said something..

Now on to the next part of your question, you said scare people, no why waste my time as well as theirs? I terrify people of the coming judgment. You haven't seen a lot of this world, not the real world. Todays churches preach a love gospel, all grace, "no wrath" sugar coated, not maggot infested. 100 years ago there was a preacher that preached fire and brimstone, while preaching one morning a bystander saw this: as he spoke of hell the congregation became so terrified they were holding on to the pews to keep from slipping into hell...

In His Service,
turnorburn

And in what way will I hear God speak to me about this topic? :-?

BTW, you said,

If the unrepentant sinner thinks that you believe Hell will be a piece of cake he'll walk away thinking Ha! no big phew that was close. Do you realize what you have
just done? and this is important! Now they are free to believe a lie, their
conciseness no longer burns, no guilt no worries, no need for a "Savior"

So, you'd be more apt to scare people into a "relationship with God", than to discover what the TRUE meaning of it all is?

 

[GraceBwithU]

Orion,
It is not about being scared into believing, It is just simply the truth.

I read somewhere one time that the greastest trick that Satan has ever played on some people is to convince them that Satan and Hell does not exist. It does, the Bible warns us plainly about it. Is this to scare us? No it is to let us know that it does exist and the nobeliever will spend eternity there. Hell, shoal, and Hades are not the same. Hell is the lake of fire. And it is real....the Bible says it is. and I believe in all the scripture. Scripture also speaks much about eternal life and Heaven.

Teaching about Hell is not to scare people into believing. It doesn't matter how scared a person may be of Hell, if the Holy Spirit is not at work in their soul, they will not truly accept Christ.

Hell does exist, but so does Heaven. the bible explains both. The choice is ours.
:smt067 :smt074

 

[Orion]

Seems there is some debate from others who have posted here that Hell doesn't mean what you all are saying it does. IF this notion of Hell is, in fact, a "man made notion to scare people into Christianity", than it is wrong, period.

I will say it again. Revelation is FULL of fantastical imagery and obvious metaphorical language. I see no reason not placing "the lake of fire" well within that metaphorical catagory.

As for what you said, . . . "if the Holy Spirit is not at work in their soul, . . . " Uh, . . . what would be the reason why the Holy Spirit would not be actively working on EVERYONE'S soul, 24/7/365?

Lastly, no one chooses Hell. IF it exists as you say, people are dragged their against their will. The common statement about Heaven and the "unbeliever" is that "God won't drag them kicking and screaming into Heaven". . . . . Dragging them kicking and screaming into Hell is another story, . . . plus having one of the angels do it.

No, I don't believe the Hell imagery to be literal, especially that which is given in Revelation.