Is Hell Real?

[SpagLard]

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.

thanks for the tip.
I prefer talking to actual people to reading online though.

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.

No, it is much more than that,
it is broadly taken : cultural contrast, knowledge of traditions and their precursors , folklore, linguistic context.

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.

i never claimed it "negated" anything.
I'm just saying it is an established fact that it isn't of Jewish origin.
I haven't met a Jew claiming that it was.
So,.. remarkable that you would go as far as saying "you are misled"
when you can simply look it up for yourself, and if you don't agree :
prove me wrong.

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.

A whole lot was "Hellenized" by the Ptolemaic Kingdom.

Do you mean "nimshal" / "mashal" ?
-Jewish parables with moral lessons in them-..as opposed to Greek ones ?
how is it that they are "way more encompassing " to you ?

 

[Down Yokel]

I seen your lengthy reply spaglard and I see you nicely avoided any exigesis of the passages concerned. And I also noticed that you think I take the whole bible literally. As I explained, maybe your having trouble interpreting, that I believe the bible originals to be literal. But not in every area. The context makes it clear what is literal and what is figurative. If your having trouble interpreting what I say, I don't see how you can be so sure of the non literalist interpretation of hell.
Now I realise my tone there seems a bit harsh, but i assure you I'm not being personal, but let's get down to brass tacks. The passage in Peter that I refer to, you disagree with. Show me verse by verse from the scripture how it is wrong.

All your verses I will gladly deal with in another thread, but let's stick to this. The bible said all scripture is profitable from teaching. You don't need to go outside for truth. And the scriptures don't mention a serpent in Eden. See, I don't take it all literally.

The original said the animal crawled on it's belly and they assumed it was a serpent and brought it up into the text.

 

[Down Yokel]

Not reading but talking to other people translates as " don't confuse me with the facts, my mind has already bee made up"

Sounds more like a J.W. Forum.

 

[SpagLard]

I seen your lengthy reply spaglard and I see you nicely avoided any exigesis of the passages concerned. And I also noticed that you think I take the whole bible literally. As I explained, maybe your having trouble interpreting, that I believe the bible originals to be literal. But not in every area. The context makes it clear what is literal and what is figurative.

I couldn't possibly think you would take the whole Bible literally,
that's just silly.

If your having trouble interpreting what I say, I don't see how you can be so sure of the non literalist interpretation of hell.

I have trouble interpreting your interpretations.
I'm sure of a non-literal interpretation often making much more sense.

Sounds more like a J.W. Forum.

What are you saying ?
Since i've joined this forum i received kind warnings from fellow Christians to
"not promote universalism " "not avance Catholic doctrine"
and now here you are insinuating that i sound like a Jehovah's Witness ?

The passage in Peter that I refer to, you disagree with. Show me verse by verse from the scripture how it is wrong.

I don't disagree with below Scripture, i said :
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

so, where did you gain that notion ?

2 Peter 1 v 19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Does Peter say "it's all to be taken literal! " , or "it's all the Word of God " ?
Just in case you don't figure.. there is a big difference between those.

the scriptures don't mention a serpent in Eden. See, I don't take it all literally.

The original said the animal crawled on it's belly and they assumed it was a serpent and brought it up into the text

I stand corrected, you are right about the original not mentioning a serpent.
But you do SEE how a literal interpretation (not mine may i add) made it out to be a serpent ?

Not reading but talking to other people translates as " don't confuse me with the facts, my mind has already bee made up"

that's just rich.
People with a made-up mind don't usually test their assumptions and
go to length asking others for their comparitive views on difficult subjects.

Cheers~

 

[stovebolts]

thanks for the tip.
I prefer talking to actual people to reading online though.

I thought you said you learned about their calendar system from Scholars. That meant you read it somewhere. If you prefer to listen, chabad.org has lots of audio that you can listen to that address this topic.

My point was if you want to learn about Jewish things, get it from a Jew, not a gentile that studies the Jews. It has been my experience that the two have completely different views.

No, it is much more than that,
it is broadly taken : cultural contrast, knowledge of traditions and their precursors , folklore, linguistic context.

Absolutely. This is true in every society which can broken down geographically as well. My point was this. The Jews were heavily persecuted in the 1st century and it continued heavily into the 3rd century. By the third century the Sages were being killed at an alarming rate in an attempt to eradicate Jewish Knowledge. Oral tradition was never written down for the sole purpose that it was to be discussed within community, not read in private. Really, people come up with the oddest ideas when they read too much without discussing it with others. Often, they misunerstand and misinterpret what they've read in private. Anyway, In fear of loosing centuries of Oral Tradition, it was written down for the first time and is now contained within the body of the Talmud in various sections.

Earlier you made it sound as if Oral Tradition was a bad thing. In reply, I've read some pretty bad commentary myself from this side of the fence, but I've also read some pretty good stuff. And guess what? You and I are talking about that stuff so we are doing the same thing the sages did.. We're talking about Oral Tradition. In short, it's just a continuation of the conversations that revolve around scripture.

i never claimed it "negated" anything.
I'm just saying it is an established fact that it isn't of Jewish origin.
I haven't met a Jew claiming that it was.
So,.. remarkable that you would go as far as saying "you are misled"
when you can simply look it up for yourself, and if you don't agree :
prove me wrong.

I'm not out to prove anyone wrong. That's the wrong attitude. The Jew's didn't adopt the Babylonian Calendar until after their exile from Cyrus. If you read back in Exodus, you'll see that Moses uses days (day 1-7) as well as months. Because Moses went off a Lunar calendar (29.5 days) and fell short of a full year, they would inject an extra month when needed according to spring time.

What can be confusing is that Jews often use the Babylonian Calendar to refer to dates in Exodus which makes people think that Moses used Babylonian calendar, which isn't true.

Going back to the Sabbath, it was based on the Lunar Calendar. A week consisted of 7 days and each day was called it's numerical day. Example: Day 1, Day 2, Day 3 etc. The Jewish months followed suit and this is bore out in the Entire Torah. (First 5 books of the Bible). Again, in the Torah we see month 1, month 2 etc. Why? Because they had not yet adopted the Babylonian calendar. BTW, they adopted it to give thanks for their release of exile. The Jews have a rich history of doing things like this.

A whole lot was "Hellenized" by the Ptolemaic Kingdom.

Yes, but that was well after the exile...

Do you mean "nimshal" / "mashal" ?
-Jewish parables with moral lessons in them-..as opposed to Greek ones ?
how is it that they are "way more encompassing " to you ?

Yes, I meant nimshal thank you for the correction. Parables are fictitious fables that don't dwell on facts, but rather bring forth truth. A Mashal would be it's equivelent, such as when Nathan told David the Mashal of the bably ewe lamb. The Mashal drove a point, and that was it's nimshel. The biggest difference between a Parable and a Mashal, is that a Parable is ficticious, while a Mashal can be factual. Job is considered a nimshal even though there is discussion on if Job was a factual or fictional person.

 

[Grazer]

[video=youtube;zT04pR_2_S0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT04pR_2_S0[/video]

John Lennox's view on it

 

[Osgiliath]

The church did not teach the concept of eternal torment until AFTER the church departed from reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, substituting Latin in its stead several centuries after Christ's death. Between 230 AD and 583 AD, there were six schools of Christian theology. Of these six prominent schools, four of them (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa) taught a form of Universal Reconciliation. The school in Ephesus taught annihilation of the wicked (i.e. - conditional immortality). Only the school in North Africa taught eternal damnation. This school was the only school out of the six where Latin was the language, not Greek. The doctrine of eternal damnation arose out of the Latin scholar's mistranslation of the Greek Scriptures and an erroneous interpretation of the Greek words for "age-lasting" ("Aionion, aioniou, aionios) vs. the Latin for "eternal" (aeternus). 'Hell' is the noun form of the old Anglo-Saxon verb 'hele' which meant to hide, conceal, or bury. It is not even a translation - it was added to the Scriptures.

'Zoe aionios' eternal life, which occurs 42 times in N. T., but not in LXX, is not endless life, but life pertaining to a certain age or aeon, or continuing during that aeon. The life in union with Christ is endless, but the fact is not expressed by aionios. 'Kolasis aionios', rendered everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46), is the punishment peculiar to an aeon other then that in which Christ is speaking. In some cases 'zoe aionios' does not refer specifically to the life beyond time, but rather to the aeon or dispensation of Messiah which succeeds the legal dispensation. See Matt. 19:16; John 5:39. John says that zoe aionios is the present possession of those who believe on the Son of God, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47,54. The Father's commandment is zoe aionios, John 12:50; to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is 'zoe aionios'. John 17:3.

There is a word for everlasting if that idea is demanded; which is 'aiodios'. Paul uses the word once, in Romans 1:20, where he speaks of "the everlasting power and divinity of God." In Romans16:26 he speaks of the eternal God (tou aioniou theou); but that he does not mean the everlasting God is perfectly clear from the context. He has said that "the mystery" has been kept in silence in times eternal (chronois aioniois), by which he does not mean everlasting times, but the successive aeons which elapsed before Christ was proclaimed.

If Paul was commissioned by God to preach the gospel to the nations, why did Paul not mention Hell even once. Something as dire and horrifying as eternal torture would be worth mentioning at least once; wouldn't you think? Paul does mention 'the grave' in 1 Corinthians 15:55, and he was declaring victory over it.

Hell, and the concept of eternal punishment is not found in the Old Testament, and most leading Bible translations no longer contain the word Hell in the entire Old Testament. And if Hell doesn't exist in the Old Testament, how could Jesus and his disciples teach that salvation was deliverance from a place that is not even found in their Scriptures? (There was only the Old Testament at that time.)

If Moses knew all about this Heathen doctrine and did not teach it to his followers what does that tell you? If Paul knew all about this Heathen doctrine and did not teach it what does that tell you? It tells you that this doctrine is not what Yahweh in the Old Testament taught, nor is this doctrine what Jesus in the New Testament taught. Moses is the author of more books in the Old Testament than any other author, and He received the law directly from God Himself, and he doesn't mention the idea of eternal punishment ONCE. Paul is the author of more books in the New Testament than any other author, and He received the Gospel directly from the Risen Christ Himself; yet he doesn't mention the idea of eternal punishment ONCE. Yet the majority would rather believe Tertullian, Augustine, Justinian, Jeremy Taylor, Jonathan Edwards, and Calvin rather than believe Moses and Paul. If these two were intimately connected with God; certainly God must have made such a harrowing possibility known to them, but He didn't.

Dr. Strong says that not only Moses but "Every Israelite who came out of Egypt must have been fully acquainted with the universally recognized doctrine of future rewards and punishments, and yet Moses is utterly silent on the subject."

Dr. Thayer remarks: "Is it possible to imagine a more conclusive proof against the divine origin of the doctrine? If Moses had believed it to be of God, if he had believed in endless torments as the doom of the wicked after death and had received this as a revelation from heaven, could he have passed over it in silence?"

If the wages of sin is eternal punishment in Hell, then Jesus would have to be eternally punished if in fact He died for my sins. But the Bible says the wages of sin is death which is exactly what Jesus did--died. So how can you say people will be eternally tortured in Hell? Is Jesus presently being eternally tortured in place of those who accepted Him as Lord?

The majority of Christians believing in eternal damnation personifies a very sick, dead church. Blessed are those who mourn - mourn over how ill Christianity is in this hour. People who believe in eternal damnation prove that they have never intimately known God. They only intellectually comprehend certain "doctrines" in their heads, but they've never known God personally in their hearts. If they did, they would know what God is like, and would know that God would never torture anyone forever. To say He would do such a thing is a horrible defamation of God's character, and beyond blasphemous.

I mean really? Are we to suppose that God requires us to behave in one way toward the unrighteous, while His own disposition toward them is exactly the opposite? Are we to believe that our Father commands us to be merciful, to love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them that persecute us ... while He banishes His enemies to everlasting damnation, torturing endlessly those that curse Him, meting out eternal vengeance upon those that hate Him, and shutting up all mercy from those who persecute Him? Seriously? 2

 

[Grazer]

Osgiliath;

I get what you're saying but I see a couple of issues with it;

Jesus did die but crucially he was raised again. The death Paul refers to (btw he got the gospel from James, Peter and John as per his letters to the churches in Corinth and Galatia) is a spiritual death. Jesus beat death which is why we can have hope and that the physical death is not the end. Also in genesis it talks about Adam and Eve dying if they eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They ate but they didn't die a physical death. It was a spiritual death which caused the seperation from God.

Also, doesn't Jesus talk about hell? If there is no hell then what's the point of the gospel? Whether hell is eternal or whether it gets destroyed when God builds the new heavens and New earth I don't know but I think there is enough in the bible to conclude that hell is very real.

 

[Tri Unity]

Since i've joined this forum i received kind warnings from fellow Christians to "not promote universalism " "not avance Catholic doctrine" and now here you are insinuating that i sound like a Jehovah's Witness ?

:toofunny So Funny! I've had this one too.

You are getting hammered here as if you were an atheist... ironically, you get off easier if you believe we evolved from monkeys... go figure!

I appreciate your strong opinions. I agree with practically everything you have said. You are very strong and courageous. Thanks for your posts.

 

[Tri Unity]

Between 230 AD and 583 AD, there were six schools of Christian theology. Of these six prominent schools, four of them (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa) taught a form of Universal Reconciliation. The school in Ephesus taught annihilation of the wicked (i.e. - conditional immortality). Only the school in North Africa taught eternal damnation. This school was the only school out of the six where Latin was the language, not Greek. The doctrine of eternal damnation arose out of the Latin scholar's mistranslation of the Greek Scriptures and an erroneous interpretation of the Greek words for "age-lasting" ("Aionion, aioniou, aionios) vs. the Latin for "eternal" (aeternus).

Although I agree with most of the opinions you concluded; I doubt that this break down of localized theology can be substantiated. Some doctrines, it is true, were localized into similar groups that you have outlined; but it was not that clear cut as you have identified. For instance; one of the chief centers of learning in the 3rd and 4th century was Caesarea. The bishops uncluded Eusebius of Caesarea and Basil the Great. Basil and Eusebius had somewhat radically different opinions to each other on many subjects, and the people of Caesarea did not want Basil to represent them. He did eventually win the chair by a small amount of deceit. So to, Alexandria was chaired by radically different spectrums of doctrines. From Clement of Alexandria, to Origen, to Dionysius, to Peter, to Alexander, to Athanasius. These fathers became poles apart over the course of 100 years. You see similar patterns occuring in Rome. Hippolytus was very different in theology to Stephen, who was very different to Dionysius of Rome. Most of the church started to break apart in theology in about 250 AD - after pope Stephen allowed heretics into the church without baptism or repentance. This decision had huge ramifications on maintaining the purity of doctrine. Cyprain and Firmillian resisted pope Stephen vigorously.

The doctrine of hell was not clearly represented in the churches; or not as clearly as your opening paragraph implied. The eternal damnation idea was not strongly taught though, as most christians understood these verses on hell as metaphors.

Tri

 

[jasoncran]

:toofunny So Funny! I've had this one too.

You are getting hammered here as if you were an atheist... ironically, you get off easier if you believe we evolved from monkeys... go figure!

I appreciate your strong opinions. I agree with practically everything you have said. You are very strong and courageous. Thanks for your posts.

i used to be a jw, what she is saying is indeed similiar to that. i didnt believe in hell nor the trinity. sorry that is the facts. i was raised in the jw faith and was in it until about 18 though not always faithfully.

 

[SpagLard]

It is funny in a sense, but also a bit disappointing..
I would have expected a higher level of tolerance towards people with a different opinion,
and less of a need to hang (non-sensical) labels on fellow Christians.

I don't understand why folks here are so quick to warn me or assume that
i would have to be a "universalist" or "push a Catholic agenda"
perhaps it is in the history of this site that this happened,
but honestly.. it has nothing to do with me or my opinions.

Thank you for your kind words Tri Unity. i appreciate it.

:toofunny So Funny! I've had this one too.

You are getting hammered here as if you were an atheist... ironically, you get off easier if you believe we evolved from monkeys... go figure!

I appreciate your strong opinions. I agree with practically everything you have said. You are very strong and courageous. Thanks for your posts.

 

[SpagLard]

Thanks for posting this Grazer !
I agree with the view of Lennox .

I think a very good point is also that the doctrine of Hell
(as a place of eternal punishment and damnation_)
also seems as if it goes directly against the forgiving and loving nature of God.

[video=youtube;zT04pR_2_S0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT04pR_2_S0[/video]

John Lennox's view on it

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Tri Unity,

Although I agree with most of the opinions you concluded; I doubt that this break down of localized theology can be substantiated.

I've spent almost 30 years researching the history of the early church, and I promise you, this can be substantiated, and it is a certainty. Get deep into the research yourself and you will see - not to mention it is one of the greatest investments of your time you will ever make. Fascinating and eye-opening.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by Grazer,

If there is no hell then what's the point of the gospel?

This comment suggests you have absolutely no idea what God's ultimate plan is, nor do you even know why God created us in the first place. You believe the infantile doctrines of the church which think that God simply created everyone to be good little boys and girls - if they're good, they go to Heaven; if they're naughty, they go to Hell. :help

You know how many times people ask me; "What is the use of going through all these things we have to endure as Christians, if no one will end up in hell anyway?" "If there was no eternal torment, wouldn't that make Christians and unsaved careless?" Such ridiculous talk only reveals the true inner condition of someone who makes such an assertion. It shows that he has no true love for God, but is serving Him only out of fear of going to hell, as a slave in fear of a tyrant. God is not looking for worshipers like that. He desires people to truly LOVE HIM for who He is (God's LOVE always wins out in the end). The knowledge of God's gracious purpose does not make true men of God careless. It makes them long to become a part of His will and an instrument in His plan of the ages. We can embrace every travail in understanding, grace, and love, when we clearly see it is working for eternal good according to His purpose which He purposed in Christ before the foundation of the world.

You say; "What is the point of the Gospel if there is no hell?" On the contrary; those who should really give up witnessing to their loved ones, and preaching to the lost are those who believe most of them will burn for ever in hell anyway! What on earth could be more worthless, unprofitable, vain, disturbing and disappointing than witnessing and preaching to men when we actually believe that God will torture most of them in unimaginable agony forever anyway? Why bother? To what end all the labor; because the devil gets most of them in the end anyhow? How ridiculous the religion of man!

>>>Grazer<<<

I think there is enough in the bible to conclude that hell is very real.

No, in fact there is NOTHING at all in the Bible (properly translated) to conclude hell is very real - as in a LITERAL place! There is one Hebrew word and three Greek words which have been translated "hell" in our commonly used King James or Authorized Version of the Bible (as I mentioned before, hell is an Anglo-Saxon verb 'hele' which meant to hide, conceal, or bury. It is not even a translation - it was added to the Scriptures.)

The only Hebrew word translated "hell" in what is commonly called the Old Testament, is the word "Sheol." "Sheol" occurs 65 times. It is translated "hell" 31 times, "grave" 31 times, and "pit" 3 times in the King James Bible. It is obvious that if "Sheol" means "hell," it should not be translated "grave." "Sheol" means the same as the Greek noun "Hades."

"Hades" is derived from the Greek verb "horao." "Horao" means "I am seeing." The Greeks then prefixed the word with "a" (alpha) which negates "to see" thus coining the noun "Hades" meaning "unseen." Therefore, "Sheol" and "Hades" mean "unseen." These two words do not describe what the English theological word "hell" means to convey.

Another Greek word "Gehenna" occurs 12 times in the New Testament; 11 times in the Gospels and one time in the Epistle of James. Jesus used "Gehenna" about 7 times. Some of the occurrences of "Gehenna" are in parallel passages, that is, they refer to the same event. "Gehenna" is the Greek form of the Hebrew "ge-hinnom." It literally means "valley of Hinnom" Sometimes it is referred to as the "valley of the sons of Hinnom." In the Old Testament "Tophet" also refers to this place. "Gehenna" is a valley that lays on the west and southwest of Jerusalem.

In the valley of Hinnom, Israel caused their children to be PASSED THROUGH THE FIRE as a burnt offering to a god who came to be known as Molech (a practice which God DETESTED. If He detested such a practice, why would God do the very same thing Himself.....PASS HIS CHILDREN THROUGH THE FIRE.... and for ETERNITY?)

The Greek word "Tartarus" occurs one single time in the entire Bible and it is found in 2 Peter 2:4. It is the place where sinning messengers (angels) are reserved unto judgment.

The English word "Hell" occurs 54 times in the King James Bible, and is a translation of 4 Hebrew and Greek words. Not one of the words has a meaning even closely related to the meaning theologians have given the English word "Hell."



The "so-called" PROOF text people use for eternal punishment occurs in Matthew 25:31-46. Eternal punishment in verse 46 in Greek is; "kolasis aionion," (Matthew 25:46) which means "age-during corrective chastisement".

Greek scholar William Barclay wrote concerning "kolasis aionion" (age-during corrective chastisement) in Matthew 25:46:

"The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. There is no instance in Greek secular literature where kolasis does not mean remedial punishment. It is a simple fact that in Greek kolasis always means remedial punishment. God's punishment is always for man's cure."

In addition, this whole discourse in Matthew 25:31-46 concerns the judgment of NATIONS, not individuals. It is to be distinguished from other judgments mentioned in Scripture, such as the judgment of the saints (2 Corinthians 5:10-11); the second resurrection, and the great white throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). The judgment of the nations is based upon their treatment of the Lord's brethren (verse 40), not salvation. No resurrection of the dead is here, just nations living at the time. To apply verses 41 and 46 to mankind as a whole is a careless and WILLFUL error made by those who WANT eternal punishment to exist.

John 3:36 - "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life (zoe aionios), and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life" - says that ZOE AIONIOS (eternal life), is the "present" possession of those who believe on the Son of God. Christ "IS" THE ETERNAL LIFE, and NO LIFE exists apart from Him. In John 17:3 it reads "to know the only true God and Jesus Christ is ZOE AIONIOS." 'Eternal life' spoken as; 'e outos Zoe' - The Life which is THE ONLY LIFE (who is Christ), and 'e zoe tou theou' - "THE LIFE OF GOD". It is not an endless duration of "existing in time", but existing IN the ETERNAL LIFE WHO IS CHRIST. This is not referring to a period of time, but the Person who IS CHRIST. The reason those who do not believe can not see Life in John 3:36 is because they are simply unaware of who THE LIFE is.... they cannot see Christ, who IS THE LIFE. In their darkened state of mind, they are unaware of (their consciousness does not perceive) the presence of THE ETERNAL LIFE which IS THE RISEN CHRIST (Holy Spirit). This has absolutely nothing to do with unbelieving people "being prevented" from continuing their existence through time beyond the grave. It has to do with one's current inability to "see" Christ, who IS the way, the truth, and THE LIFE.... THE ETERNAL LIFE.

Knowing this, if eternal torment were true, God would have to be eternally tormented along with you, because THERE IS NO LIFE APART FROM HIM. Some say unbelievers will be eternally separated from Him. This is IMPOSSIBLE - because THERE IS NO LIFE APART FROM HIM. Life means ANY LIFE (i.e. - consciousness, awareness, spiritual life, biological life, and all of the above.)

When one looks at the lives of those church leaders who brought the doctrine of "Eternal Torment" into the church some 400-500 years after Christ, we find a long string of envyings, power plays, persecutions, character assassinations, book burnings, murders, and tortures. They became like the god they created – tormentors and murderers! The logic of the church was simple: "If God is going to burn heretics in Hell for all eternity, why shouldn't the church burn them to death now?"

They exchanged the truth for a lie and brought darkness to the world, a period called the Dark Ages. The church is still in the Dark Ages with its belief in eternal torment - but thanks to the separation of church and state, as well as other governmental laws in other countries, the church can no longer torture people and/or burn them at the stake for not believing their insanity (they would if they could - the carnal nature of man doesn't change). Now, they only kick you out of church (and forums .

 

[Tri Unity]

I've spent almost 30 years researching the history of the early church, and I promise you, this can be substantiated, and it is a certainty. Get deep into the research yourself and you will see - not to mention it is one of the greatest investments of your time you will ever make. Fascinating and eye-opening.

I have heard such statements before by people who claim to know the ECF; but they are simply misrepresenting the Early Church Fathers to teach their own agendas. I have read nothing to support your claim. If it is a "certainty", perhaps with your 30 years of researching you would like to provide some of that evidence for me. I don't like it when the Early Church Fathers are used to promote false ideas. I am protective of them as if they were my own fathers. If I am wrong I will gladly admit it. Show me your evidence.

 

[felix]

Osgiliath,

Scripture is not based on any language alone to interpret their own way. It goes far to describe it to its very detail.

Was Jesus joking when He mentioned about Lazerus on Abraham's bosom and the rich man tormented in flames?

Sent from mobile.

 

[Osgiliath]

Originally posted by felix,

Osgiliath,

Scripture is not based on any language alone to interpret their own way. It goes far to describe it to its very detail.

Was Jesus joking when He mentioned about Lazerus on Abraham's bosom and the rich man tormented in flames?

Well let's talk about the "parable" of the Rich Man and Lazarus. I'm glad you brought that up. Luke 16:19-31 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) is a parable. Jesus is in the midst of teaching five parables, beginning in ch. 15:3 with the parable of the Lost Sheep. Following that are the parables of the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Administrator, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The purpose of these parables is to teach the Pharisees a lesson about how they treat publicans and sinners. If you take the Rich Man parable literally (which apparently you do), you have to throw out everything the rest of the scriptures have to say about death. But not only that....

Is Lazarus literally sitting on the bosom on Abraham? Why not, if this is literal? Answer the question. In the parable, the Rich Man is damned because he was rich and wore fine things. Lazarus is sitting on Abraham's bosom simply because he got bad things in this life. There is nothing in the "parable" about the gospel, nothing about faith. If you're going to make this parable the criteria for either being consciously tormented in flame or sitting on Abraham's bosom for eternity, then you're going to have to base salvation on wealth, not faith. Well? What is the criteria for salvation in this context? Physical disadvantage only; there is nothing about faith here. So lets all wear shabby clothes and get dogs to lick our sores. We'll be on our way to paradise!

Since this is a five-fold parable, beginning in chapter 15, why don't you make the Prodigal Son in 15:11-32 literal? At the end of the parable, the father says, "This, my son, was dead." Why don't you take that death literally? Answer the question. Using your system of interpreting parables literally, you can use the parable of the prodigal son to prove that, after people die, they go off to a far country, spend all their money on hookers and booze, then end up in a pig sty eating unpopped jiffy-pop popcorn.

This is a "parable" and not to be taken literally. The meaning is - the Rich Man was an actual son of Abraham. Christ had him calling Abraham his "father" (Luke 16:24) and Abraham acknowledged him as "son" (verse 25). Such sonship made the Rich Man a legal possessor of Abraham's inheritance. Indeed, the Rich Man had all the physical blessings promised to Abraham's seed. He wore purple, the symbol of kingship, a sign that the Davidic or Messianic Kingdom was his. He wore linen, the symbol of priesthood, showing that God's ordained priests and the Temple were his. Who was this Rich Man who possessed these blessings while living on the earth?

The Israelite tribe that finally assumed possession of both the kingdom and priesthood, and the tribe which became the representative one of all the promises given to Abraham, was Judah. There can not be the slightest doubt of this when the whole parable is analyzed. Remember that Judah had "five brothers." The Rich Man also had the same (verse 28).

"The sons of Leah; [1] Reuben; Jacob's firstborn, and [2] Simeon, and [3] Levi, and "Judah", and [4] Issachar, and [5] Zebulun." (Genesis 35:23)

"And Leah said ... 'now will my husband be pleased to dwell with me; for I have born him six sons.'" (Genesis 30:20)

Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham's blessings (both spiritual and physical), Christ was showing that he had been unfaithful with his responsibilities. Judah was not the true steward of the Abrahamic blessings. Though he and his literal brothers had been graced with the "oracles of God" (the Old Testament) they would not respond to the One resurrected from the dead - Christ (Luke 16:29-31). The "great gulf" was the Jordan rift valley the dividing line between Gentile lands and the Holyland of promise (Abraham’s inheritance). Crossing the Jordan was a typical figure recognized by the Jews as a symbol of salvation.

The Lazarus of the parable was Eleazar, Abraham's steward (Genesis 15:2). He was a Gentile "of Damascus" ("a proselyte of the gate") who "ate the crumbs." He was disinherited (to become a beggar) but he remained faithful to Abraham and God. When this earthly life was over, he received Abraham's inheritance after all (he was in Abraham's bosom). This "parable" has absolutely NOTHING to do with an eternal, LITERAL, mythological torture chamber. That's heathen lore - specifically pagan. The "fires" have to do with feelings, emotions, shame, guilt, humiliation, etc. (i.e. - spiritual torment).

 

[felix]

Well let's talk about the "parable" of the Rich Man and Lazarus. I'm glad you brought that up. Luke 16:19-31 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) is a parable. Jesus is in the midst of teaching five parables, beginning in ch. 15:3 with the parable of the Lost Sheep. Following that are the parables of the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Administrator, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The purpose of these parables is to teach the Pharisees a lesson about how they treat publicans and sinners. If you take the Rich Man parable literally (which apparently you do), you have to throw out everything the rest of the scriptures have to say about death. But not only that....

Is Lazarus literally sitting on the bosom on Abraham? Why not, if this is literal? Answer the question. In the parable, the Rich Man is damned because he was rich and wore fine things. Lazarus is sitting on Abraham's bosom simply because he got bad things in this life. There is nothing in the "parable" about the gospel, nothing about faith. If you're going to make this parable the criteria for either being consciously tormented in flame or sitting on Abraham's bosom for eternity, then you're going to have to base salvation on wealth, not faith. Well? What is the criteria for salvation in this context? Physical disadvantage only; there is nothing about faith here. So lets all wear shabby clothes and get dogs to lick our sores. We'll be on our way to paradise!

What? The Parable of the the Rich Man and Lazarus has nothing about gospel and faith? Really?

(Luke 16:29) "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

The parable is not about rich and poor but, being rich and not taking care of the poor, failing to obey the law of God as mentioned in Deu 15:7-11.

(Deut 15:7-8) " If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs. ... (Deut 15:11) "For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.'

Don't try to deceive yourself.

(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.'

Jesus mentions the descriptions and torment of hell twice. One in a parable and the other directly.

 

[Osgiliath]

Felix, never mind. You can't even grasp the idea that it IS a parable, much less what the parable means. If you don't understand the correlation with the Rich Man and Judah, and Lazarus and the "gentile" Eleazar, I'm not going to go back and forth with you trying to get you to see past your ridiculous eternal torture chamber fantasy. God is the only One who can open eyes, so let's leave it at that. My previous post was already too long :bigfrown