What is the Biblical view of hell?

[otseng]

The concept of Hell is one of the many unmarketable, embarrassingly unbelievable religious concepts that has been recently swept under the altar in the severely diluted quasi-belief system that passes for Christianity in certain circles.

In fact, I think this is why Christianity invented eternal punishment in hell. They started to realize that just plain dying wouldn't be compelling. So instead they invented the concept of "Everlasting Punishment" for those who refuse to comply.

Questions for debate:
What is the Biblical view of hell?
What concepts do we have of hell that are not in the Bible?

[onewithhim]

Peace to you both,

(following the exchange between OWH and marco)

[Replying to post 214 by onewithhim]

When Jesus said that it would be better that someone like Judas had never been born, where is the reference to eternal torture? Isn't eternal DEATH worse than anything?

There is no reference to eternal torture, you are correct. But in this scenario, death is not worse than anything. If it were, then why would Judas have killed himself? To him, something else must have been worse than death.



Some people do not seem to be taking into consideration (or understanding) the extreme remorse, shame, guilt, even fear that such a person (Judas in this example) would be feeling. Enough that he would rather be dead - even wish that he had never been born! Hence, he killed himself!




People are the ones coming up with all these horrible torments (burn alive forever, scream in pain and agony for all eternity, etc). Just look at the tortures that man has come up with to literally torture their fellow man. That does not come from God! Such things do not enter His mind. Is that not what He said through one of His prophets about those who burned their children in the fire? (Jeremiah 32:35).



God's ways are higher than our ways.


Peace again to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Perhaps I misunderstood your first thoughts about Judas. It seems that the further I read in your post, you have the reasonable and trust-worthy idea about "hell" that I adhere to.

Well said.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 217 by marco]

Sadly, and unbelievably, you have not paid any attention to the discussions on the definitions of "soul," "spirit," "breath of life," nor "Hades," "Gehenna," or "Lake of Fire."
You just stay with the twisted descriptions and definitions that men have introduced into the world's own popular lexicon.

I'm not going to continue to go around and around with someone who wishes not to even consider the opposite point of view from the common herd.

I wish you well.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 126 by Imprecise Interrupt]

I think I remember that "the right thing" included honoring Jesus as Lord and doing what he said to do. That involves some kind of belief in him. He said:

"You are my friends if you do what I am commanding you." (John 15:14)

• John 13
  34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
  
  John 14
  21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.�
  
  John 15
  12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

It is love that is the commandment. There is no mention of ‘honoring Lord Jesus’. Love entails action, else what is the point? Jesus laid down his life for mankind because of love. Matthew 19 required loving your neighbor as yourself for eternal life, and has Jesus point away from himself and toward God as the authority for this (V 17). The story of the Sheep and the Goats emphasizes action, even when there is no awareness of any ulterior motive for the action. (“When did we…�) In the story of the Good Samaritan there is no mention of honoring Jesus, only God. Loving your neighbor is all about action.

In John 14:21, the word translated as commandments (�ντολάς) is plural. What commandments (plural) did Jesus give? How about Matthew 19?

You seem to think that I disagree with you about ACTIONS. I do not. It's very clear that a person must DO certain things to be God's friend, and part of that is to be JESUS' friend. You wrote yourself that Jesus said, 'you are my friends if you DO what I command you.' I had posted that also.

Matthew 19 is good, showing things that Jesus expects his friends to do or not do.

Your point that all honor or glory goes to God, the Father, is right on the money. Even everything that Jesus did was for his Father's glory.

"God exalted him to a superior position...and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9,11)

My point is that even knowing anything about Jesus is not part of the requirements. In Matthew 19 Jesus makes it clear that it is not about him but doing what God wants. In the Sheep and the Goats the righteous are just doing the right thing as they see it unaware of religious motives but are rewarded for it. In the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan knows nothing about Jesus yet he is considered righteous.

• Romans 2
  14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Paul is saying that everyone has an innate moral sense that they need to follow and on which they will be judged.

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. (John 14:21)

Keep those moral requirements and you are a friend of Jesus even if you do not know it. That is what I see there.

How can someone "keep Jesus' commandments," as he says at John 14:21, and yet not know anything about him?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 197 by otseng]

"Breath of life" and "soul" are two different things.

BREATH OF LIFE: ru'ach; by far, the majority of references to "ru'ach" are related to god's spirit, his ACTIVE FORCE, his holy spirit.

SOUL: ne'phesh[; the Scriptures show "soul" to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or animal has.


So, they are not the same thing, and it would benefit each of us to understand the difference.

Yes I think this point is a key point in understandjng what happens at death. From the Hebrew word for "wind" SPIRIT refers to an unseen driving force or active power. In the bible it often is used to refer to God's power, the force he uses to get things done. It is this power or force that animates all living breathing creatures.

SPIRIT and SOUL are not synonyms.

By blurring the lines between the two different words religionists have facilitated the idea that a part of humans survives death.

To illustrate: It's very much like confusing the difference between electricity and a computer, so that one can claim that when the computer breaks down and it cannot run its software, it "lives on" because electricity still exists.

FURTHER READING “Soul� and “Spirit�​—What Do These Terms Really Mean?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... t-meaning/

A beautiful post! This will inform anyone who wants to really understand these things of the truth of the matter. People who don't pay attention will go on in darkness, unfortunately. We just have to remember....all we have to do is tell them. They can take it or leave it.

That the "soul" is the combination of a physical body and the "life force" that has made it alive and that will return to resurrect it in the future is what the Bible teaches. Many people are satisfied with the erroneous man-made ideas of a person's conscious spirit living on after death, some to live in agony in a fire. Even though it is not what the Bible teaches, in its original languages. Men have corrupted large parts of the Bible and all it takes is some research to figure out just what has been corrupted. People really don't want to bother, so they make up all kinds of excuses as to why they don't want to study and research.

[JehovahsWitness]

HAVE PEOPLE BEEN TAUGHT THE TRUTH ABOUT HE'LL?

Those truths are that hell is:

• * a place of eternal existence, "torment," and judgment of the dead/wicked

DO THOSE IN HELL FEEL PAIN OR DISCOMFORT?

Those truths are that hell is:

• * wholly... , uncomfortable...

JOB 3:11-19 (NIV)


“Why did I not perish at birth and die as I came from the womb? [...] For now I would be lying down in peace; I would be asleep and at rest

CAN THOSE IN HELL EVER ESCAPE?

Those truths are that hell is:

• * cannot be escaped

REVELATION 20:13

And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. - Douay-Rheims Bible

PSALMS 16:10

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; nor wilt then give thy holy one to see corruption. - Douay-Rheims Bible

PSALM 49:15

But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol, for he will receive me. - English Standard Version

Of ... of hell [...] The grave shall not have power to retain me, but shall be forced to give me up into my Father’s hands.... - Matthew Poole's Commentary

JW

To learn more go to other posts related to...

HEAVEN, HELL and ... THE CONDITION OF THE DEAD

[William]

William: The reader can see clearly that Job (14) is not a declaration of any truth pertaining to any afterlife experience the Human Being will or will not go through.
The character in that story is expressing his state of mind as it currently was, to the thought of continuing on and puts hope in the notion that there will be nothing else for him to experience and grief or joy will be no more.

Job: If only you would hide me in the grave and conceal me till your anger has passed!

William: Clearly that is a wish from Job, not a statement on the reality of anything actual.

Job: If only you would set me a time and then remember me!

William: Clearly the character of Job is stating that even if it were the case his wish could be granted, he does not want it to be 'forever' - he wants his GOD to retrieve him eventually from any such fate he is currently wishing for. Job does not want 'not existing' as a permanent condition.

Job: If someone dies, will they live again?

William: Clearly Job does not know either way. He is simply going off the premise of the idea that a real death experience would be a great relief from his current unbearable condition. He is calling for relief in the form of no longer being a conscious entity experiencing anything.

Job: All the days of my hard service I will wait for my renewal to come.

William: Clearly Job is more interested in the idea of continuing on after he has finished with the Human Experience. He has the advantage that he understands both riches and rags.

The Human Experience is but a phase in the overall experience of an individual Eternal Entity.

I do not myself buy into the idea that one can be forced to suffer an eternity of torment, but do appreciate the Justice involved in allowing each and every Eternal Entity to create Its own reality based upon what kind of character they developed into through their Human Experience, even if indeed they suffer for a while in a self created Hell on account of their evil ways.

[tam]

Peace to you!

Peace to you both,

(following the exchange between OWH and marco)

[Replying to post 214 by onewithhim]

When Jesus said that it would be better that someone like Judas had never been born, where is the reference to eternal torture? Isn't eternal DEATH worse than anything?

There is no reference to eternal torture, you are correct. But in this scenario, death is not worse than anything. If it were, then why would Judas have killed himself? To him, something else must have been worse than death.



Some people do not seem to be taking into consideration (or understanding) the extreme remorse, shame, guilt, even fear that such a person (Judas in this example) would be feeling. Enough that he would rather be dead - even wish that he had never been born! Hence, he killed himself!




People are the ones coming up with all these horrible torments (burn alive forever, scream in pain and agony for all eternity, etc). Just look at the tortures that man has come up with to literally torture their fellow man. That does not come from God! Such things do not enter His mind. Is that not what He said through one of His prophets about those who burned their children in the fire? (Jeremiah 32:35).



God's ways are higher than our ways.


Peace again to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Perhaps I misunderstood your first thoughts about Judas.

You did, but you figured it out already ; )


I was thinking the same thing as you in your comment here:

If there was fire in "hell," you'd think he would want to stay alive as long as he could, because to die would mean, to a believer in hell-fire, that he would face the flames, wouldn't he?

Yep.

The fact that he took his life counters the suggestion that some have made in this thread - that the people of the time (at least the Jews, both those Jews who listened to Christ and those who did not) believed in the traditional (but erroneous) doctrine of hell (that it is a place of eternal torment and torture).

It seems that the further I read in your post, you have the reasonable and trust-worthy idea about "hell" that I adhere to.

I cannot agree with the JW position that the dead have simply ceased to exist... but we do agree in our understanding that 'hell' is not a place of torture and eternal torment.

My first post on this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=970644#970644




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

I have already negated Luke 16.

Well let us examine this "refutation" of what one might regard as Christ illustrating post mortem punishment. Here's what you say:


Luke 16 is an ALLEGORICAL scenario that Jesus set forth to emphasize the guilt of the Pharisees in not spiritually feeding the people. A depiction of a literal hell-fire is not his intention, any more than a person in Hell could actually speak to a person in Heaven, or any more than a single drop of water could help quench the pain of being in a literal burning fire. (Look up what "allegory" means.) We have talked about Hell and what it means. It is translated from the word "Hades" and means the GRAVE. There is nothing in Luke 16 that is literal, except the hypocritical position of the Pharisees.

There's nothing wrong with suggesting the tale is allegorical, which means it is to be understood symbolically, the characters having some meaning. Your suggested interpretation belittles Christ's efforts since there's next to no symbolic meaning attached to the characters.


We know Christ's parables are NOT literal, so there's no need to defend against that charge. But they DO contain illustrative truth, else they are poor parables.You think the entire point of Christ's Lazarus parable is to illustrate guilt, with no explanation as to why the rich man should feel pain or guilt while the other is apparently comforted. You believe that after death there is no guilt or pain, so Jesus - you might say - is talking nonsense in choosing a post mortem scenario in which to couch his lesson. The lesson you think he imparts is so trivial and so completely irrelevant to the scene Christ sets that it is amazing that you put this forward as an explanation of the parable.

Yes, symbols are used but as with any literature one must find a justification for the symbolic parts of the story: that means interpreting the bosom of Abraham and the awful torment the rich man undergoes. You haven't done that. But in fact you have "negated" the parable in that you have removed sense from it. Christ surely deserves a bit more than a cursory glance.

In conclusion Christ is illustrating via threats and symbols that punishment awaits the sinner. Luke 17:2
“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.�

If he's just going to lie dead in perpetuity, Christ's words don't make sense.

[William]

@238

marco: In conclusion Christ is illustrating via threats and symbols that punishment awaits the sinner.

Luke: It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

marco: If he's just going to lie dead in perpetuity, Christ's words don't make sense.

William: True that. The Doctrine of Death makes little sense for that matter, in relation to the overall biblical story.
@7 re: "The Rich Man and Lazarus"...

[JehovahsWitness]

There's nothing wrong with suggesting the tale is allegorical, which means it is to be understood symbolically...

ALLEGORY

As a literary device, an allegory is a metaphor in which a character, place or event is used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS : A STORY OF ALLEGORICAL DEATH

• One of the objections to the suggestion that Jesus parable of the rich man and Lazarus was entirely allegorical, is that Jesus supposedly would not have used death as an metaphor.
  
  
  
  Some suggest that his doing so would have been confusing for those that had adopted the pagan teaching of the immortality of the soul and/or be seen as somehow endorsing that teaching, which he would never have done had he himself not believed it to be true. Some therefore conclude that one of the points of his story must have been to educate people about the condition of the dead and the agony that awaits the wicked in the afterlife.

JESUS AND METAPHOR

• The gospel writers note that Jesus use of metaphor, allegory, visual aids and illustrations was prolific, indeed one writer observed that"without an illustration he would not speak". He drew on the everyday items, events and habits, even if, for some they occassionally seemed confusing or controversial.
  
  
  WOULD JESUS HAVE AVOIDED USING DEATH AS A METAPHOR FOR FEAR OF BEING MISCONSTRUED?
  
  JESUS told a would-be disciple he needed to be born...twice, said John the Baptiser was Elijah, told his disciples they needed to eat his body and drink his blood, hack off their own limbs if they were an impediment to salvation and said the respected religious leaders of his time they would end up on the city garbage heap. Clearly Jesus was not one to shy away from making his point for fear some would take away the wrong idea. Of course some could (and do even today) conclude Jesus was promoting self mutilation, canabalism, reincarnation and a disregard for burial traditions but those with insight would understand the hyperbole or humbly seek more instruction.
  
  He used birth as a metaphor for the spirit anointing, , virgins for the faithful, marriage for the kingdom arrangement, children for the religious elite....given all that it would arguably be an anomaly for him not to have used death as a metaphor for something sooner or later. Why since he used, birth, marriage, childen, fathers, would "death" be deemed as "allegorically untouchabe"?

LET THE DEAD BURY THEIR DEAD!

• Jesus's cautioned a disciple who hesitated to join him on the pretext that he had to bury his relative to "Let the dead bury their dead". The warning makes little sense unless he is using death in at lease one of the mentions allegorically. Evidently Jesus did not shy away from speaking about those that are literally alive as being "dead" (ie having died metaphorically).
  
  Indeed if Jesus listeners were unfamiliar with the idea of an allegorical "death" they should not have been. The Prophet Ezekiel had recorded God's promise to his exiled people, saying ...
  

  " I open your graves and when I raise you up out of your graves, O my people.�’ ‘I will put my spirit in you and you will come to life, and I will settle you on your land.�

  Likening their captivity to being in the grave God here addresses people who were literally alive in Babylon as if they were dead in the grave. An allegorical grave representing thir real life captivity. A allegorical death representing their exile. And an allegorical "resurrection" representing their return.

CONCLUSION Jesus drew on the human experience including birth and death to illustrate educate, encourage, reprimand or rebuke. Thus there is no reason to conclude that the "death" of Lazarus and the Rich man could not be illustrating somethjng OTHER than literal death. If an allegory is a "character, place or event" used to deliver a broader message about real-world issues and occurrences, then the allegorical "death" of a fictional rich man, who went to a made up place of torment, could well have been Jesus way of communicating something about the real life situation he saw around him and nothing whatsoever to do with the condition of the dead.