Man Conceived Religions

[Highway54]

I like to delineate between the grave and hell, as most think of hell as a place of fire without end.
When I mean grave, I just say grave.
When I mean hell, I just say lake of fire.
Both grave and hell will be tossed into the lake of fire. (Rev 20:14)
I had heard of and read about hell for many years, and knew I was surely worthy of it.
My excitement came when I heard I could get a good conscience toward God by getting baptized. (1 Peter 3:21)
As I learned of all that water baptism entails, my excitement grew.

That is why some Bibles just use the original word to eliminate the confusion Hope. The King James Version of the Bible was the mainstay for around 4 centuries though. And its translators chose to render the word hell, grave, and pit. Perhaps you might recognize they are referring to the same place, but this is very confusing to many, who have just accepted what has been told to them. Then the translators rendered gehenna as hell as well, which further confused it.

We live in the age of information today, most things can simply be "Googled". I think the hell fire doctrine was started to scare people into serving God, but has repulsed many as well. Certainly torturing people eternally is an oxymoron for a God of love as you realize. Would you like to discuss what the Bible really teaches about what hell really is, so that you will be equipped to help others who are deceived by this God dishonoring doctrine as well?

 

[Robert Pate]

That is why some Bibles just use the original word to eliminate the confusion Hope. The King James Version of the Bible was the mainstay for around 4 centuries though. And its translators chose to render the word hell, grave, and pit. Perhaps you might recognize they are referring to the same place, but this is very confusing to many, who have just accepted what has been told to them. Then the translators rendered gehenna as hell as well, which further confused it.

We live in the age of information today, most things can simply be "Googled". I think the hell fire doctrine was started to scare people into serving God, but has repulsed many as well. Certainly torturing people eternally is an oxymoron for a God of love as you realize. Would you like to discuss what the Bible really teaches about what hell really is, so that you will be equipped to help others who are deceived by this God dishonoring doctrine as well?

I agree with you. How would God be glorified by people suffering in hell for all eternity?

Matthew 10:28 says that the body and the soul will be destroyed in hell. I think that is more compatible with the nature and character of God.

 

[Free]

No sir, soul literally means breathing creature, when the breath of life leaves us we are dead

I have given at least one verse that strongly suggests otherwise.

Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (ESV)

Jesus is clearly making a distinction between body and soul, as well as suggesting that the soul survives the death of the body.

Gen 3:4

You said: "God said you will die, satan said you cannot die."

However, this is what Satan said:

Gen 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. (ESV)

I think we agree on what Sheol and Hades are Free.

I said nothing about Sheol and Hades.

You first stated: "The Bible also identified the lake of fire as the second death, in other words permanent destruction, gone."

I responded with: "Not really. I even gave a verse which says something quite different:

Rev 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (ESV)"

You then responded: "If God is that evil, I will be right there beside you sir! It would explain why satan had the gumption to stand against him."

To which I responded:

"And, yet, you did not address my main argument against this assertion.

Something to consider, taken from an article in The Apologetics Study Bible, written by J. P. Moreland, and titled "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?":

"Does the Bible teach that the unsaved will suffer in hell for only a time and then be annihilated? Some argue from Scripture that the flames in hell are literal and point out the flames destroy whatever they burn. Further, they claim that infinitely long punishment is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishment.

The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Dn 12:2; Mt 25:41,46). Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely figures of speech for judgment (cp. Heb 12:29; 2 Th 1:8). Otherwise, contradictions about hell are apparent (for example, it is dark despite being filled with flames).

The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.

Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while the quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.

The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of the sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethical standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the tradition view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to annihilationism." (p. 1292)

If God does or decrees something, it is always just and never evil, even if you don't like it."


It's also hard not to notice that for the second time you didn't address the argument immediately above, which was the whole point of me saying: "And, yet, you did not address my main argument against this assertion."

This is were we fall into disagreement Free, we have both agreed that gehenna is represented by the lake of fire. I think our disagreement comes from what we understand the second death to mean. Would you like to discuss what gehenna is?

Why, when you are not addressing some of my arguments as it is?

You also once again ignored my questions, for at least the third time, so I will ask again:

Based on Luke 12:45-48, when do those punishments occur? Do all get the same punishment or is God just and gives different punishments based on offenses?

 

[Free]

I agree with you. How would God be glorified by people suffering in hell for all eternity?

Matthew 10:28 says that the body and the soul will be destroyed in hell. I think that is more compatible with the nature and character of God.

No, it doesn't say that they "will" be destroyed, only that God is "able" to destroy them both in hell. Perhaps you care to address this argument:

Something to consider, taken from an article in The Apologetics Study Bible, written by J. P. Moreland, and titled "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?":

"Does the Bible teach that the unsaved will suffer in hell for only a time and then be annihilated? Some argue from Scripture that the flames in hell are literal and point out the flames destroy whatever they burn. Further, they claim that infinitely long punishment is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishment.

The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Dn 12:2; Mt 25:41,46). Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely figures of speech for judgment (cp. Heb 12:29; 2 Th 1:8). Otherwise, contradictions about hell are apparent (for example, it is dark despite being filled with flames).

The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.

Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while the quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.

The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of the sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethical standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the tradition view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to annihilationism." (p. 1292)


That is a fairly strong argument, imo.

 

[Hopeful]

That is why some Bibles just use the original word to eliminate the confusion Hope. The King James Version of the Bible was the mainstay for around 4 centuries though. And its translators chose to render the word hell, grave, and pit. Perhaps you might recognize they are referring to the same place, but this is very confusing to many, who have just accepted what has been told to them. Then the translators rendered gehenna as hell as well, which further confused it.

We live in the age of information today, most things can simply be "Googled". I think the hell fire doctrine was started to scare people into serving God, but has repulsed many as well. Certainly torturing people eternally is an oxymoron for a God of love as you realize. Would you like to discuss what the Bible really teaches about what hell really is, so that you will be equipped to help others who are deceived by this God dishonoring doctrine as well?

I personally don't think there will be any end of the suffering for those who chose to suffer.

 

[Robert Pate]

No, it doesn't say that they "will" be destroyed, only that God is "able" to destroy them both in hell. Perhaps you care to address this argument:

Something to consider, taken from an article in The Apologetics Study Bible, written by J. P. Moreland, and titled "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?":

"Does the Bible teach that the unsaved will suffer in hell for only a time and then be annihilated? Some argue from Scripture that the flames in hell are literal and point out the flames destroy whatever they burn. Further, they claim that infinitely long punishment is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishment.

The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Dn 12:2; Mt 25:41,46). Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely figures of speech for judgment (cp. Heb 12:29; 2 Th 1:8). Otherwise, contradictions about hell are apparent (for example, it is dark despite being filled with flames).

The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.

Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while the quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.

The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of the sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethical standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the tradition view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to annihilationism." (p. 1292)


That is a fairly strong argument, imo.

In 2 Peter 3:9 Paul said that the Lord is not willing that any should perish. The word "perish" in the Greek means to destroy. Going to hell is not perishing. It is a state of suffering where one will still exist. I believe that the soul will be destroyed in hell. It will be like one never did exist; they were destroyed.

What glory would multitudes of people eternally suffering in hell bring to God?

 

[Free]

In 2 Peter 3:9 Paul said that the Lord is not willing that any should perish. The word "perish" in the Greek means to destroy. Going to hell is not perishing. It is a state of suffering where one will still exist. I believe that the soul will be destroyed in hell. It will be like one never did exist; they were destroyed.

You're contradicting yourself, so I don't know what side you're arguing for and against.

Be careful in appealing to the meanings of words, since most words have more than one meaning, more than one way they're translated. In this case, apollumi is defined as:

Thayer Definition:

1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaphorically to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose

And has been translated as:

bring (1), destroy (17), destroyed (9), dying (1), end (1), killed (1), lose (10), loses (7), lost (14), much (1), passed away (1), perish (14), perishable (1), perished (4), perishes (1), perishing (6), put to death (1), ruined (3).

What glory would multitudes of people eternally suffering in hell bring to God?

All would see the justice of God.

 

[Robert Pate]

You're contradicting yourself, so I don't know what side you're arguing for and against.

Be careful in appealing to the meanings of words, since most words have more than one meaning, more than one way they're translated. In this case, apollumi is defined as:

Thayer Definition:

1) to destroy
1a) to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
1b) render useless
1c) to kill
1d) to declare that one must be put to death
1e) metaphorically to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
1f) to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
2) to destroy
2a) to lose

And has been translated as:

bring (1), destroy (17), destroyed (9), dying (1), end (1), killed (1), lose (10), loses (7), lost (14), much (1), passed away (1), perish (14), perishable (1), perished (4), perishes (1), perishing (6), put to death (1), ruined (3).


All would see the justice of God.

People suffering in hell for all of eternity makes God unjust. It is not compatible with the nature and the character of God who said that he is not willing that any should perish, 2 Peter 3:9.

 

[Free]

People suffering in hell for all of eternity makes God unjust. It is not compatible with the nature and the character of God who said that he is not willing that any should perish, 2 Peter 3:9.

You say it isn’t compatible but haven’t shown that to be the case.

You also keep repeating 2 Peter 3:9, that God “said he is not willing that any should perish.” Yet, you also said:

‘The word "perish" in the Greek means to destroy. . . . I believe that the soul will be destroyed in hell. It will be like one never did exist; they were destroyed.’

That makes your argument to 2 Pet meaningless. You say that people will perish—be destroyed—but that God is not willing that any should perish (be destroyed).

So, what is your purpose in appealing to 2 Peter 3:9? What do you think it means?

 

[BB1956]

I don't see Christianity as a religion. Paul said, "The just shall live by faith" Romans 1:17. Living by faith does not include religion. Those that are living by faith are living by faith in Christ and his Gospel and not by rules, laws or religion. I think Mormon should be spelled Morman, because it is more about man than Christ.

There is a true Christian Congregation. The apostles and disciples were the members of this true Christian Congregation who have the truth that's in the scriptures and teach this truth and live by it.

So I honestly believe that the scriptures are correct when it tells us we need to read the scriptures and meditate on them. In the scriptures it tells those who are truly Christian they are not to forsake meeting together (Hebrews 10:24,25)

So true Christians would be organized so that they meet together inciting each other to love and fine works, not forsaking the gathering together and they will be encouraging one another. So the true Christian Congregation will be organized. You can call it a religion or whatever you want, but the True God isn't about chaos he's about order. So the true Christian Congregation will be an organization.

I agree we must choose who the true anointed Christians are, because it will be those who the true anointed Christians are who are Jesus brothers, who will have God's Holy Spirit as an organization will be the people Jesus will be using to warn the people that they're living in the last days of this wicked system of things. They will be teaching that this wicked system of things is soon to be destroyed and only those who listen and exercise faith in Jesus as being God's only begotten Son who he used to save mankind and acknowledging who the true anointed Christians are, who are Jesus brothers are the ones that will be saved. So those sheep who help Jesus brothers in their assigned work of teaching people about the kingdom of God that the True God has made his only begotten Son Jesus Christ king of will be saved.(Matthew 25:34-40)
It's those who are called Jesus brothers who are of the heavenly calling these will be the ones who will be kings, judges and priests with Jesus in that heavenly Messianic kingdom. They make up the anointed church or the true Christian Congregation that will have God's Holy Spirit. These anointed Christians who are Jesus'brothers Jesus will use to give spiritual food at the proper time to those sheep on earth who recognize Jesus brothers as belonging to Jesus and who help Jesus brothers in the assigned work that Jesus has given them concerning preaching about the Messianic kingdom.

 

[Robert Pate]

You say it isn’t compatible but haven’t shown that to be the case.

You also keep repeating 2 Peter 3:9, that God “said he is not willing that any should perish.” Yet, you also said:

‘The word "perish" in the Greek means to destroy. . . . I believe that the soul will be destroyed in hell. It will be like one never did exist; they were destroyed.’

That makes your argument to 2 Pet meaningless. You say that people will perish—be destroyed—but that God is not willing that any should perish (be destroyed).

So, what is your purpose in appealing to 2 Peter 3:9? What do you think it means?

The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but some will perish because they do not believe and have faith in Christ and his Gospel. God has done all that he can do to save fallen man, but he will not force anyone to believe in his Son Jesus Christ.

 

[Robert Pate]

There is a true Christian Congregation. The apostles and disciples were the members of this true Christian Congregation who have the truth that's in the scriptures and teach this truth and live by it.

So I honestly believe that the scriptures are correct when it tells us we need to read the scriptures and meditate on them. In the scriptures it tells those who are truly Christian they are not to forsake meeting together (Hebrews 10:24,25)

So true Christians would be organized so that they meet together inciting each other to love and fine works, not forsaking the gathering together and they will be encouraging one another. So the true Christian Congregation will be organized. You can call it a religion or whatever you want, but the True God isn't about chaos he's about order. So the true Christian Congregation will be an organization.

I agree we must choose who the true anointed Christians are, because it will be those who the true anointed Christians are who are Jesus brothers, who will have God's Holy Spirit as an organization will be the people Jesus will be using to warn the people that they're living in the last days of this wicked system of things. They will be teaching that this wicked system of things is soon to be destroyed and only those who listen and exercise faith in Jesus as being God's only begotten Son who he used to save mankind and acknowledging who the true anointed Christians are, who are Jesus brothers are the ones that will be saved. So those sheep who help Jesus brothers in their assigned work of teaching people about the kingdom of God that the True God has made his only begotten Son Jesus Christ king of will be saved.(Matthew 25:34-40)
It's those who are called Jesus brothers who are of the heavenly calling these will be the ones who will be kings, judges and priests with Jesus in that heavenly Messianic kingdom. They make up the anointed church or the true Christian Congregation that will have God's Holy Spirit. These anointed Christians who are Jesus'brothers Jesus will use to give spiritual food at the proper time to those sheep on earth who recognize Jesus brothers as belonging to Jesus and who help Jesus brothers in the assigned work that Jesus has given them concerning preaching about the Messianic kingdom.

The mark of God's ownership is the Holy Spirit. All that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit are the bought ones. They have been bought with the shed blood of Christ. The only ones that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit are those that believe the Gospel, Galatians 3:2. You will not find the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ in the organized church. Organized religion and the historical Gospel of Jesus Christ are not compatible.

 

[Highway54]

I agree with you. How would God be glorified by people suffering in hell for all eternity?

Matthew 10:28 says that the body and the soul will be destroyed in hell. I think that is more compatible with the nature and character of God.

I am glad, but knowing what gehenna is, is quite beneficial for us to know sir.

 

[Robert Pate]

I am glad, but knowing what gehenna is, is quite beneficial for us to know sir.

Spiritually, Gehenna is Hell. Physically, it is a dump. Not much benefit from knowing that. What is beneficial to know is what Jesus accomplished for us in his life, death and resurrection.

 

[Highway54]

I have given at least one verse that strongly suggests otherwise.

Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (ESV)

Jesus is clearly making a distinction between body and soul, as well as suggesting that the soul survives the death of the body.


You said: "God said you will die, satan said you cannot die."

However, this is what Satan said:

Gen 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. (ESV)


I said nothing about Sheol and Hades.

You first stated: "The Bible also identified the lake of fire as the second death, in other words permanent destruction, gone."

I responded with: "Not really. I even gave a verse which says something quite different:

Rev 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (ESV)"

You then responded: "If God is that evil, I will be right there beside you sir! It would explain why satan had the gumption to stand against him."

To which I responded:

"And, yet, you did not address my main argument against this assertion.

Something to consider, taken from an article in The Apologetics Study Bible, written by J. P. Moreland, and titled "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?":

"Does the Bible teach that the unsaved will suffer in hell for only a time and then be annihilated? Some argue from Scripture that the flames in hell are literal and point out the flames destroy whatever they burn. Further, they claim that infinitely long punishment is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishment.

The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Dn 12:2; Mt 25:41,46). Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely figures of speech for judgment (cp. Heb 12:29; 2 Th 1:8). Otherwise, contradictions about hell are apparent (for example, it is dark despite being filled with flames).

The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation. That becomes evident from the following consideration.

Regarding the end of life, sanctity-of-life advocates reject active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), while the quality-of-life advocates embrace it. In the sanctity-of-life view, one gets one's value, not from the quality of one's life, but from the sheer fact that one exists in God's image. The quality-of-life advocates see the value of human life in its quality; life is not inherently valuable. Thus the sanctity-of-life position has a higher, not a lower, moral regard for the dignity of human life.

The traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of the sanctity-of-life and quality-of-life ethical standpoints. After all, the grounds that God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not receive salvation, and if God will not extinguish one made in His image because He values life, then God's alternative is quarantine, and hell is certainly that. Thus the tradition view, being a sanctity-of-life and not a quality-of-life position, is morally superior to annihilationism." (p. 1292)

If God does or decrees something, it is always just and never evil, even if you don't like it."


It's also hard not to notice that for the second time you didn't address the argument immediately above, which was the whole point of me saying: "And, yet, you did not address my main argument against this assertion."


Why, when you are not addressing some of my arguments as it is?

You also once again ignored my questions, for at least the third time, so I will ask again:

Based on Luke 12:45-48, when do those punishments occur? Do all get the same punishment or is God just and gives different punishments based on offenses?

I said nothing about Sheol and Hades.

You are quite right sir, I apologize. It is easy to think you have had a previous discussion since days go by and it is not an in line discussion. Would you like to discuss what Sheol and Hades is Free?

 

[Highway54]

I personally don't think there will be any end of the suffering for those who chose to suffer.

Sooner or later we die Hope. I would say that those who choose to suffer, is not really compass enough to make that choice. Who in their right mind would ever choose to suffer?

 

[Free]

You are quite right sir, I apologize. It is easy to think you have had a previous discussion since days go by and it is not an in line discussion. Would you like to discuss what Sheol and Hades is Free?

We've already been through that. I would really like it if you answered my questions and addressed the arguments I have made several times now.

 

[Hopeful]

Sooner or later we die Hope. I would say that those who choose to suffer, is not really compass enough to make that choice. Who in their right mind would ever choose to suffer?

Everyone who commits sin risks eternity for that sin.
Now tell me they don't want suffering for that sin.
Sin is an all or nothing deal.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night—those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”

 

[Highway54]

Spiritually, Gehenna is Hell. Physically, it is a dump. Not much benefit from knowing that. What is beneficial to know is what Jesus accomplished for us in his life, death and resurrection.

I don't disagree with any of that Robert Pate but even though it might not seem important to you, God did choose to include it in His word. It is very relevant to us to know what it is, because it is not a place, rather a judgment, and a permanent one at that. Extremely few people actually know what it is, you simply posted the general understanding of it, what most people who know anything about it know.