Is Hell Real?

[jasoncran]

I don't WANT to think any particular thing, i go by Scripture.
To be able to decypher scripture accurately,
one essentially needs to study/ know word-origins.



I never said heaven is a place where the dead go .
She'ol is where the dead go.



This is scripturally sound.

So , going by scripture, heaven can not be Within the believer and also
somewhere other outside of God's creation

(see Genesis 1 and 2 / God does not create any "heaven" other than described earlier by studying the words and what they mean. _ )
(god created "The heavens and the Earth" : meaning the entire then-known universe)

So what is heaven and where is it ?

heaven (the Hebrew is always plural , thus : heavens ) -symbolically- is/are the "Kingdom of God" .





It is Inside the true believer ON EARTH..
so it is not a place, or an afterlife,
it is a state of being Faithful and reverent to God.
(Thus "being with God in heaven" _)

and theres isnt righteous dead? moses was dead and he was where in sheol yet whom was at the transfiguration'

ye err concerning the dead for god is of living for all live to him.

actually so if i want to understand greek and speak it i just need strongs? man you are so wrong. man, john the baptist and jesus spoke of his coming as wedding and jesus used the hebrew wedding to describe his second return. i suggest you observe a wedding of any jews that are orthodox. i did read up on it and ask and took jesus statements in that context. man it blows my mind.

the jews then even did believe that there would be a paradise and peace. why did jesus die? to make heaven on earth or to redeem men and creation? what what the original state of it all? no death and no sin. death will defeated.,hmm so how does a ressurection fit in?

 

[felix]

I didn't say that there is no eternal punishment; I said that the meaning of eternal punishment is not literal. I believe that the description of "eternal punishment" was meant to be taken as a metaphor. I don't believe that this eternal punishment is literally a place where fire is eternal and human bodies live inside that fire eternally along with the worm. I do not believe in eternal annihilation or universal salvation either. You do not even understand my position. You have twisted my words right out of context based on assumptions.

Is Jesus Christ preaching hell without the knowledge of it ?

(Mark 9:43-44) "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched -- where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'

 

[Tri Unity]

Is Jesus Christ preaching hell without the knowledge of it?

(Mark 9:43-44) "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched -- where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'

What is your point. I agree with all of the scriptures. You are speaking down to me as if I dispute what Jesus said. Jesus also said that he would no speak unless it was in parables. Do you understand what a parable is?

"Jesus spoke all these things in parables to the crowds; he did not speak to them without a parable. This fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet:

“I will open my mouth in parables, I will announce what has been hidden from the foundation of the world.”

"Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

Everything was spoken in parable, symbolism and metaphor. By seeking a literal understanding of scripture the meaning has completely evaded you.

 

[jasoncran]

so he isnt returning? he spoke in parables about his return.

sheesh, jeff was right most christians wouldnt know what a parable was if one hit them in the head.

 

[Tri Unity]

so he isnt returning? he spoke in parables about his return.

sheesh, jeff was right most christians wouldnt know what a parable was if one hit them in the head.

Why don't you explain to us all exactly what a parable is.

• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like a dragnet?
• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like a field?
• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like a mustard seed?
• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like a person who sowed good seed?
• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like yeast?

• Why are these parables limited to the kingdom?
• Why cannot the resurrection be like a seed?
• Why cannot the return be like lightning flashing?
• Why cannot the elect be like a bride?
• Why cannot Christ be like a worm? (Psalms 22:6)
• Why cannot a worm be like Christ? (Mark 9:44, 46, 48)

I would sure like your wisdom on all this.

 

[jasoncran]

Why don't you explain to us all exactly what a parable is.

• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like a dragnet?
• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like a field?
• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like a mustard seed?
• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like a person who sowed good seed?
• Why is the Kingdom of heaven like yeast?

• Why are these parables limited to the kingdom?
• Why cannot the resurrection be like a seed?
• Why cannot the return be like lightning flashing?
• Why cannot the elect be like a bride?
• Why cannot Christ be like a worm? (Psalms 22:6)
• Why cannot a worm be like Christ? (Mark 9:44, 46, 48)

I would sure like your wisdom on all this.

when you admit that the ressurection is a metaphor. then well talk. jesus spoke of it in a parable.

elect are a bride. jesus likened his return to a jewish wedding with a mention of a feast. that doesnt mean we eat in heaven but it means there will be a celebration. he used how the jews did their wedding to show the joyous day it will be.

its not hard to take the idea of death of the wicked in that manner. he likens natural things to spiritual things. hmm not hard.new flash.the tanach doesnt have parables. it has enshiel which are stories that are used to teach but are based on real events. hmm close a parable aint it.?

genesis is one of those.namely the six day account.why then do you believe in eternal life if theres no eternal damnation both are mention in the same sentence in revalation.

 

[Tri Unity]

Is Jesus Christ preaching hell without the knowledge of it ?

(Mark 9:43-44) "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched -- where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'

Felix, I appreciate that you at least try and give a well thought out and intelligent reply to most things. I would like to hear your response on the scriptures and examples dealing with parables and metaphors.

 

[jasoncran]

so if there's No ressurection of the unjust on that last day therefore theres no ressurection of the just. you cant have it both ways. if wicked arent judged then what? why would god raise them only to destroy them?

 

[felix]

What is your point. I agree with all of the scriptures. You are speaking down to me as if I dispute what Jesus said. Jesus also said that he would no speak unless it was in parables. Do you understand what a parable is?

"Jesus spoke all these things in parables to the crowds; he did not speak to them without a parable. This fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet:

“I will open my mouth in parables, I will announce what has been hidden from the foundation of the world.â€

"Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.â€

Everything was spoken in parable, symbolism and metaphor. By seeking a literal understanding of scripture the meaning has completely evaded you.

Parable?

(Mark 9:43-44) "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched -- where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'

Is Jesus describing an imaginary non-existent place and even went further to describing about the everlasting torments and unquenchable fire in absolute clarity ?

Tell me, why should Christ use a non existent place in His parable? To make the people fearful? or to speak the truth that they need to be saved to avoid that hell fire?

Even the very verses I quoted speak for itself. Jesus Christ is so keen that you even cut off your body parts to avoid sinning and thus avoid going to such a horrible place.

 

[Tri Unity]

Jesus Christ is so keen that you even cut off your body parts to avoid sinning and thus avoid going to such a horrible place.

Really? Ok, whatever you say.

 

[jasoncran]

felix most churches here that teach hellfire as reality believe that idea of removing ones eyes and hands is statement. one cant change one heart with that method.instead it teaches us to take that fact that natural urge to sin make take us to hell so we should 'cut it off"

 

[SpagLard]

All this talk about figuritive language etc is starting to fall into the realms of liberalism.

Blame the ancient Hebrews for that, for it is them who used figuratively descriptive terms for about everything.
There is nothing liberalist about knowing that Scripture is not to be taken at face value, or litterally , as it is quite obvious mostly symbolic; parable and metaphor.

Lets start with scriptures. I'll start with one. Someone mentioned about tartaros being mythological. I don't care where the word got it's origins. It is a word according to the lexicons that means the abode of the damned. Now let me make this point first. That is, that ALL scripture is given by the holy spirit.

The problem is that you dont care about how words originate or beget their meaning,
not the fact that Tartarus refers to a Greek Pagan concept of the underworld.

All scripture is given by the Holy Spirit, agreed,
but that does not in any sense imply "take it at face value"
or "don't doubt the words, for they can only ever mean a single thing : the litteral meaning"

Now if that same man who says that, writes " For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" and uses the word tartaros to do it, then to say he is mistaken, or using mythology is to say the holy spirit is wrong or inaccurate and I'm afraid I can't accept that. I don't care what history or any man tells me

How can a Christian , Use a Pagan Greek term correctly to translate the Words of his God who did not speak Greek ?

I'm not making out that the bible is perfect. I believe that bible IS gods word, however no translation is perfect but the resources I have say these passages are true. Now if someone wants o exegete the passage to tell me that it's wrong and can do it scripturally. Then I'm all ears.

First off, you are correct in NO TRANSLATION is perfect.
Translations only ever "come close" to reflecting the original.

"tartarus " is a borrowed word and concept,
It effectively ONLY relates to PAGAN concepts (Hellenist Greek).
I suppose the next question is then ;
Did the Pagan Greeks mean this "underworld" figuratively or literally ?
Do you know that in Greek mythology: tartarus is A Being And a Realm ?

Maybe we should all try and face the reallity of he'll and get a fire lit and a desire to reach the lost who may be headed there and stop the whole Idea of figurative thinking. If a passage in scripture is figurative THE CONTEXT MAKES IT CLEAR.

I've never met two Biblical literalists who could agree on the one "clear"
meaning of any biblical concept. so much for inerrency.

Yes , that is so productive.. just stop the "figurative thinking "
stop with saying words are metaphors !!!!
OK friend, stop applying "the mind of man" to scripture all together,..
see how far it will get you.

take these all-literal then, and explain them :
-tree of life
-the Promised Land
-garden of Eden
-the Serpent
-Earth is flat ?

"yes, but you see the context makes all these CLEAR in a single correct way of understanding those concepts ! , without critically thinking about anything ! "

 

[jasoncran]

the ancient jews and many today take genesis literaly. i have an old commentary by rambam on beersherith(genesis) he says that if doesnt take the six day account literaly then isreal has no right to exist.

for a figurative week then, the jews based the seven day week on something that was well figurative. in hebrew the word day is literally a day when it has a number in front of it.

 

[Grazer]

Just some of my thoughts;

Taking scripture literalistically and taking it seriously are 2 different things. I use the word literalistically as opposed to literally because literally means to take it as it would have been taken by the people of the time. As John Walton put it; "the bible is written for us but it isn't written to us. The bible wasn't written in our language or with out culture in mind" Just because its the word of God doesn't mean it was dictated.

I think hell is a real place, it has to be if heaven is, it doesn't make sense otherwise (at least not to me)

 

[SpagLard]

the ancient jews and many today take genesis literaly.

I know a few jews , some do , most don't.
Most Jews do not read the Bible literally. Genesis nor other parts.

the jews based the seven day week on something that was well figurative

It is Based on the Baylonian Calendar's lunar cycle,
there is nothing inherently "jewish" about "shabbath"
Rest on the seventh day is a borrowed concept which
comes from Sumerian/Akkadian times.
even the word comes from an older Pagan culture. sa-bat / Sapattum( Sumerian ; "mid-rest").

 

[jasoncran]

I know a few jews , some do , most don't.
Most Jews do not read the Bible literally. Genesis nor other parts.



It is Based on the Baylonian Calendar's lunar cycle,
there is nothing inherently "jewish" about "shabbath"
Rest on the seventh day is a borrowed concept which
comes from Sumerian/Akkadian times.
even the word comes from an older Pagan culture. sa-bat / Sapattum( Sumerian ; "mid-rest").

those would be well reformed or constructionists but not the orthodox. ah yes come here to push false religion. no thanks. i thought so

it is? really why then doesnt shabat start on a full moon? it starts each friday at sundown in jerusalem. moons were used for monthly days and and feasts but no the shabat.please. not all feasts use the moon. channukah doesnt.

 

[SpagLard]

I use the word literalistically as opposed to literally because literally means to take it as it would have been taken by the people of the time.

Please allow me to point out the very real "possibillity" that
"the people of the time" did not at all take it litteral,
in fact they had an oral tradition to accompany the texts
which mostly dealt with interpreting symbolism and parable imagery.

I think hell is a real place, it has to be if heaven is, it doesn't make sense otherwise (at least not to me)

I agree it does not make sense otherwise.
Which is exactly why i think neither is an unseen place / location .
To me , Both are states of a soul's being.

 

[SpagLard]

those would be well reformed or constructionists but not the orthodox.

They are observant jews.
They treat the Torah as dynamic. not static.

ah yes come here to push false religion. no thanks. i thought so

excuse me ?
I don't push anything, let alone "false religion " ,
i'm sharing my personal take on matters.
Try being a bit less judgemental perhaps ?

it is? really why then doesnt shabat start on a full moon?

because the count starts at NEW moon .
moon cycle = 28 days.

it starts each friday at sundown in jerusalem. moons were used for monthly days and and feasts but no the shabat.please. not all feasts use the moon. channukah doesnt.

i didn't say anything about Channukah .
I simply stated a fact most scholars agree on ,
that the seven-day-week, and seventh-day rest was not a Jewish invention,
it was borrowed from the then prevalent older culture and their calendar system.

Cheers~

 

[stovebolts]

Spaglard,

With all due respect please go to a jewish site or read respectable jewish scholars to get you information about them. Chabad.org is a good site. Rambban, rambam and rashi are respectable scholars.

As far as oral tradition, it was written in the 3rd century when the sages were being put to death at an alarming rate and is now contained with the talmud. Tell me, do you read commentay on scripture? That is all oral tradition is. Its discussion and commentary on scripture.

As far as the babilonian calendar, that does not negate the lunar cycle let alone the 7 day creation or sabbath. The scholars youare reading are misleading you.

As far as your comment in regard to parables, that is a greek word with greek thinking behind it. In hebrew, it is known as a nimshell and is way more encompassing than a parable.

 

[Grazer]

There are a lot of similarities between the old testament and other near eastern documents which predate the old testament. Did the old testament writers borrow from these texts? Or did God use what they would have known and understood to convey his message? The latter completely works for me. It doesn't negate anything but the extra biblical documents provide a backdrop for the culture that the old testament was written in. Peter enns has written extensively on this.

What I'm saying is that even if God did take the Babylonian myth and use it, it doesn't affect the inspiration of old testament scriptures I.e they don't don't suddenly stop being Gods word