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?

[RightReason]

[Replying to William]



It seems to me you have a grave misconception of the Church so much so we seem to be talking pass each other. I could be wrong, but it appears you seem to be in the popular Jesus & Me camp. The movement that is critical of organized religion and insists the Church is an unnecessary obstacle that gets in the way. The belief that a person can go directly to Jesus making the Church superfluous. This movement is attractive in its convenience to be the ultimate judge of what God wants from us.

This approach however, misses who/what the Church is. This group reduces Christ’s Church to a mere man made institution forgetting that the Church was established by Christ Himself. Also forgotten is that the Church is not only earthly and human, but supernatural and divine. She is after all the mouthpiece thru which Christ chose to communicate and promised to remain with. She is also the distributor of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which remember Scripture tells us unless we partake, have no life in us.

Jesus did not teach his Disciples to believe.

Uuummmm . . . incorrect.


Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. -John 6:47
And Jesus said to him, “‘If you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.� –Mark 9:23

He taught them how to enter into the knowledge of where their belief leads them...

Uummm . . . no. There is no biblical reference about entering into the knowledge nor has the Church used such terms. Sounds kinda New Agey.

The Disciples KNEW about the Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven because Jesus showed them how to experience the Kingdom of Heaven.

Uummm . . . kind of. You’re a little off. It doesn’t say Jesus showed them how to experience the kingdom of heaven, rather He tells them the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to them. He’s basically telling His disciples, look, you guys get it, because I have revealed it to you, but not everyone gets it, so you need to help them get it. They were entrusted a role and responsibility.


“To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.� –Colossians 1:27


“You, however, have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.�- 1 John 2:20


“Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.� -1 Corinthians 4:1



This of course was setting the state for the establishment of Christ’s Church.


I am establishing my Church so that those I have so informed can go on to inform others. Jesus then goes on to tell Peter (the first Pope) . . .


“Blessed art thou, Simon Barona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.� –Matthew 16:17


Then He goes on to tell Peter He is giving him the keys to the kingdom and what he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven. He tells Peter to feed his sheep. Peter is to shepherd the flock. He tells Peter he who rejects you, rejects me . . . How do you not get this?


The Catholic Church has an unbroken line of Apostolic succession that can be traced back to Peter and ultimately Christ, Himself.

The Church does not have access to those things which Jesus showed his Disciples.

Yes. She does. Peter was the first Pope and Scripture reveals how this power/authority given by Christ was passed on. If one knows and understands Scripture he knows that “keys� represent an office. Keys are passed on, just as we are told happened in the Old Testament. Really a topic for another thread, but I encourage you to look into it. It is quite beautiful.

[onewithhim]

In short via the correct definition of the word SOUL we arrive at a biblical understanding of the condition of the dead.

Why is your definition of a soul the "correct" one? On what basis do you claim it is the correct one?

Um, the definition of "soul" is shown from the meaning of the Hebrew word "nephesh." I think a Jew who knows Hebrew would tell you that it means the complete person or animal.

The editor of the Jewish Publication Society said this: "The Bible does not say that we HAVE a soul. 'Nephesh' is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being." (H.M. Orlinsky, New York Times, 1962)

Interestingly, the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: "The soul in the Old Testament means not a PART of man, but the WHOLE man--man as a living being ." (1967, Volume XIII, p.467)

The New American Bible, a Roman Catholic translation, in its glossary section says: "In the New Testament, to 'save one's soul' (Mark 8:35) does not mean to save some 'spiritual' part of man, as opposed to his body but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical." (P.J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970)

Perhaps you can see that it is not a definition dreamed up by Jehovah's Wintesses, but the meaning of it is understood in scholarly circles other than JWs

[William]

[@]

RightReason: It seems to me you have a grave misconception of the Church so much so we seem to be talking pass each other. I could be wrong, but it appears you seem to be in the popular Jesus & Me camp.

William: Refute what I have argued, please do. It is not a great debate tactic to attack the person who is making the arguments.

Trying to judge me 'this' or 'that' gives no refute to what I have argued and only serves as a means for one to 'talk past' what I have argued...

RightReason: The movement that is critical of organized religion and insists the Church is an unnecessary obstacle that gets in the way. The belief that a person can go directly to Jesus making the Church superfluous. This movement is attractive in its convenience to be the ultimate judge of what God wants from us.

William: As far as any organised religion goes, I did indeed used to be judgmental until I was reminded that it is not my duty to judge organised religion. I leave that to Jesus.

What I have done here, in presenting my case, is to show clearly where the lines are drawn in relation to the Individual, the Church and The Knowledge of The Secrets of The Kingdom of Heaven.

I do not judge the Church for being unable to provide for me this Secret Knowledge which Jesus is able to bestow on the individual - through individuals actually experiencing facets of said Kingdom - the facets are equal to the secrets Jesus mentioned. They are the same thing, said differently.

As I already wrote, the Church was not given these secrets so I would not rightfully expect the Church to be able to bestow that knowledge to me.
For that matter, nor are any members of the Church permitted to bestow judgement upon me, if I claim that I have an actual relationship with Jesus.

To the best of my knowledge, nor have I implied in my interaction with you that the Church is superfluous, just because my requirements are being meet through my personal relationship with Jesus.

Whatever the Church had to do with my process, that job is finished. I walked through the gateway into Life.

The Church acted as the signpost pointing the way to The Gate, although I do admit that I did encounter plenty of her members acting more like gate-keepers trying to prevent me from entering through, and not even entering through themselves.

I have moved on from that dynamic, now understanding it for what it was because of the free-range 'feeling' one receives once one passes through that Gate. It is scary and exciting at the same time, so I understand the fear involved, just as I understand the fear requires overcoming.

Having said all that, I appreciate your concerns, but still insist we get back on point regarding what I have argued. I do not Judge you and see the Church as still very much relevant as the signpost to The Gateway, so while the Gateway remains necessary, so too does the signpost.

Jesus did not teach his Disciples to believe.

RightReason: Uuummmm . . . incorrect.

William: I have made it a rule to follow that I do not argue with anything which is presented out of context...in this case the quote you are arguing against.
The full contextual quote is;

"Jesus did not teach his Disciples to believe. He taught them how to enter into the knowledge of where their belief leads them... "

If one wishes to contest anything I wrote, please do so in the context that I wrote it.

Thanks.




RightReason: There is no biblical reference about entering into the knowledge nor has the Church used such terms. Sounds kinda New Agey.

William: Given that you present yourself as a spokes-person for the Church, I would say to the Church, the following.

Of course the Church has not used such terms. I gave my reasons why this is the case, is because Jesus did not inform the Church how to enter into the Secrets Of The Knowledge of The Kingdom of GOD.

But we know they exist, because a Disciple was instructed by Jesus to tell the Church at least that much.
So because of that Disciple, the individual now knows that there are secrets to discover about The Kingdom Of Heaven.

Frankly, as much as I do not expect the Church to be the source of those secrets, nor do I expect persons acting on behalf of the Church to be able to question my integrity or make slurs as to what they think I am or how 'new-agy' I might sound to them.
That is irrelevant to my argument.

So please stick to arguing against what I write rather than commenting on what you think I am, because it will help in building our relationship for the better.

Agreed?

The Disciples KNEW about the Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven because Jesus showed them how to experience the Kingdom of Heaven.

RightReason: Uummm . . . kind of. You’re a little off. It doesn’t say Jesus showed them how to experience the kingdom of heaven, rather He tells them the knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been given to them. He’s basically telling His disciples, look, you guys get it, because I have revealed it to you, but not everyone gets it, so you need to help them get it. They were entrusted a role and responsibility.

William: That is better!
We may have now entered into the realm of semantics. I say "Entered into" you say "told them the knowledge"
This then boils down to ones personal experience regarding such things.

We can break it down though.

Point being, we have a few snippets relevant to the subject so should both agree that all that private time the disciples spent out of the public together with Jesus, they would not have been playing tiddlywinks.

The most pertinent pointer given us, is that what Jesus showed them is part of what Jesus did.
In that, Jesus did so many things that it was supposed that all the books in the world couldn't contain all account of them.

Words to that effect.

Point being, the Church has only one book, which does not appear to cover such secrets other than hint the secrets exist.

Quoted Script: To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
You, however, have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.
Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.

RightReason: This of course was setting the state for the establishment of Christ’s Church.

William: If the Disciples had shared those secrets with the Church, then the Church would be able to impart them to the Church Children, who would then be able to impart them to the world.
For now, no such secrets have been shared in that manner, so the individual is free to go directly to The Source, without the Church representative in the present, making any authoritative protest against the individual.

RightReason: I am establishing my Church so that those I have so informed can go on to inform others. Jesus then goes on to tell Peter

Quoted Script: Blessed art thou, Simon Barona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven

RightReason: Then He goes on to tell Peter He is giving him the keys to the kingdom and what he binds on earth shall be bound in heaven. He tells Peter to feed his sheep. Peter is to shepherd the flock. He tells Peter he who rejects you, rejects me . . .

William: I fail to see where your argument somehow refutes anything I have written. It appears that you believe I am arguing against all of that, when nowhere at all have I done so.
However, if you are able to show the reader where Peter actually shares anything about The Secrets of Knowledge of The Kingdom of Heaven, that would be an interesting thing for me!

RightReason: The Catholic Church has an unbroken line of Apostolic succession that can be traced back to Peter and ultimately Christ, Himself.

William: While I have read the interactions between you and JW, it grieves me to hear the name-calling going on...it is like the mother calling the Child an orphan while the child calls the mother a whore...I prefer to stay out of that argument, and have given you no reason to bring it into our conversation.

The Disciples KNEW about the Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven because Jesus showed them how to experience the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Church does not have access to those things which Jesus showed his Disciples.

RightReason: Yes. She does.

William: Like I said above - I am interested. Please share these.

RightReason: Peter was the first Pope and Scripture reveals how this power/authority given by Christ was passed on. If one knows and understands Scripture he knows that “keys� represent an office. Keys are passed on, just as we are told happened in the Old Testament. Really a topic for another thread, but I encourage you to look into it. It is quite beautiful.

William: Please - do share what Peter told the Church.
What Secrets did Peter reveal in relation to The Secrets of The Kingdom of Heaven?

[marco]

[Replying to post 363 by JehovahsWitness]


I have no idea how to continue this conversation further, since you simply repeat what I know: that nephesh can mean a living being or a living creature. You then give examples of what can happen to living creatures. We can say: "Some poor souls were forced to eat human flesh" and someone might respond: But how can the immortal soul eat if it is a spirit? It probably can't. But soul is being used as person.

On some occasions we are talking about the spirit part of man and on others we are talking about a living creature, with shades of related meaning.

The word "anima" in Latin has a similar wealth of meaning, covering the same range as nephesh. It can mean wind, breath, the principle of life, life, an animal, a living being, the soul. The meanings are not interchangeable in any text: animam relinquere for instance means to give up the ghost, to die, and the translation: living being would not apply.

[Checkpoint]

It would be heretical to propose new theology like annihilation and soul sleep. These teachings were not taught by Christ or His Church and therefore it would be wrong to believe them.

For a long time, I was unconsciously fearful of being labeled a heretic. I think most Christians have this fear as well. I believe this fear of being labeled a heretic has silenced too many and left parishioners to simply be bobbleheads.

Sometimes it was the heretic that was right, not the ones who were burning them at the stake. We should not demonize heretics and automatically discount a position simply because it's contrary to what "the Church" teaches.

What we should do is be willing to study the scriptures with an open mind. If scripture leads us to church doctrine, then great. But, if it does not support church doctrine, we should be willing to go where the evidence leads, not to where authority tells us.

About hell, as I've mentioned before, as Christians, it matters little if we believe it's eternal or temporary, being tortured or annihilated. Our view of hell has nothing to do with salvation. No one will be denied heaven because they held an erroneous view of hell. So, we should not label someone a heretic simply because they have an unorthodox view of hell.

Yes, what we believe about hell has nothing to do with our personal salvation.

But I suggest it reveals something significant about the character of the God we worship.

Many Jews regarded Christ and his followers as heretics, so some of us are in good company!

For the record, consider this definition:

From HELPS Word-studies

139 haíresis (a feminine noun derived from 138 /hairéomai, "personally select, choose") – properly, a personal (decisive) choice.

139 /haíresis ("a strong, distinctive opinion") is used in the NT of individual "parties (sects)" that operated within Judaism. The term stresses the personal aspect of choice – and hence how being a Sadducee (Ac 5:17) was sharply distinguished from being a Pharisee (Ac 15:5; 26:5).

[As a feminine noun, 139 (haíresis) highlights the subjective (individual) nature of a specific (divisive)opinion]

[RightReason]

[Replying to otseng]

RightReason wrote:

It would be heretical to propose new theology like annihilation and soul sleep. These teachings were not taught by Christ or His Church and therefore it would be wrong to believe them.

For a long time, I was unconsciously fearful of being labeled a heretic. I think most Christians have this fear as well. I believe this fear of being labeled a heretic has silenced too many and left parishioners to simply be bobbleheads.

Sometimes it was the heretic that was right

The heretic is never right in his heresy. There is no problem with speaking up about something that is being done wrong in the first place, but what a heretic does is teach or believe something that is false. The Church has an obligation to protect Christ’s teachings and safeguard Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Truth can’t be protected if we say it doesn’t really matter what you believe.

We should not demonize heretics and automatically discount a position simply because it's contrary to what "the Church" teaches.

Uuummm . . . why not? Well, maybe not demonize, but certainly call them out. It’s more merciful to call them out then perhaps allow them to go down a road of destruction. If they are teaching something contrary to Christ’s Church, then they are wrong. A person who does this needs to be exposed for what they are doing, less they lead themselves or others astray.

What we should do is be willing to study the scriptures with an open mind. If scripture leads us to church doctrine, then great. But, if it does not support church doctrine, we should be willing to go where the evidence leads, not to where authority tells us.

Ha, ha, ha . . . so, then I suppose you do not believe Sacred Scripture when Jesus told His Church, “He who hears you, hears me� “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven�, “He who rejects you, rejects me�

Scripture does not contradict the Church and the Church does not contradict Scripture. We have Christ’s promise on this. He promised to remain with His Church and sent the Holy Spirit to guide her in all truth. Do we not trust His words? Did He ever say, I’m establishing my Church, but feel free to start your own if you think you know a better way?

About hell, as I've mentioned before, as Christians, it matters little if we believe it's eternal or temporary, being tortured or annihilated. Our view of hell has nothing to do with salvation. No one will be denied heaven because they held an erroneous view of hell. So, we should not label someone a heretic simply because they have an unorthodox view of hell.

Truth matters. How do you know it doesn’t matter if a person believes hell is temporary vs. eternal? If a person believes hell is temporary, perhaps he leads a life of sin and evil because he thinks he will simply cease to exist, when in actuality he will be punished for eternity. He might have liked to have known that little detail.

Christ gave us His Church to inform us about these things. He apparently thought it was of importance.

****

Jesus doesn’t only reference hell, he describes it in great detail. He says it is a place of eternal torment (Luke 16:23), of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43), where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48), where people will gnash their teeth in anguish and regret (Matt. 13:42), and from which there is no return, even to warn loved ones (Luke 16:19–31). He calls hell a place of “outer darkness� (Matt. 25:30), comparing it to “Gehenna� (Matt. 10:28), which was a trash dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned and maggots abounded. Jesus talks about hell more than he talks about heaven, and describes it more vividly. There’s no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned against the absolute reality of hell.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/arti ... yone-else/

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 373 by William]

If the Disciples had shared those secrets with the Church, then the Church would be able to impart them to the Church Children, who would then be able to impart them to the world.

That is exactly what the Church does on a daily basis. In Scripture we read how the crowds refused to go on with Jesus when He told them they would need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, but the disciples remained with Him. And what did they do? They went on to teach the beautiful secret of the True Presence, in the Holy Eucharist, which the Church celebrates as a perpetual offering every day. What bigger secret is there than unless we eat His Body and drink His Blood we have no life in us. But if we do, He will raise us up on the last day.

The Church beautifully teaches the awesome mystery of the Trinity. I’d consider that a pretty amazing secret. Gosh, one of the most beautiful, wise, and wondrous secrets of the kingdom is the Church’s teaching on contraception. Every other church changed her teaching on this, but Christ’s Church has remained constant in imparting this beautiful teaching. What better secret of the openness to life and our role as co creators with God as our path to entering into the kingdom.

I could go on and on and talk about the secret of the assumption of our Blessed Mother that the Church reveals to her children. So, no idea what you are talking about when you say God’s Church does not reveal the secrets of the kingdom of God.

[JehovahsWitness]

I have never heard of the word soul being applied to animals ....

Are you saying that you did not know the Hepbrew word translated in the bible as SOUL (NEPHESH) and applied to humans is also applied to Animals? And if so, are you saying that you know this now?

Or are you suggesting all these translators are in error and that NEPHESH (soul) should in reality never be applied* to an animal?


* I'm not speaking of how it should be translated (indeed sometimes it is translated as "creature", sometimes , as "beast" "living thing"... but in all the verses below, no matter which translation it is always without exception being APPLIED to a flesh and blood animal.






ANIMALS ARE CALLED SOULS

GENESIS 1:24

And God said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind, yea, work beasts, and reptiles, or creeping beasts, and unreasoning beasts of the earth, all after their kind; and it was done so - WYC

NUMBERS 31:28
And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep - KJVA

SOUL Nephesh (The Hebrew equivalent of psykhḗ ) is used to refer to animals in twenty-two passages in the bible:

Genesis 1:20, 21,24, 2:19; 9:10,12; Leviticus 11:46. Leviticus 11:10; Ezekiel 47:9. Genesis 1:20, 30. Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23 ; Proverbs 12:10. "beast", Leviticus 24:18, Job 41:21. "fish", Isaiah 19:10. Refering to both humans and animals : "creature". Genesis 9:15, 16. Leviticus 17:11, 14, Numbers 31:28

Source The Holy Bible, Hewlett, 1811

[William]

[@]

William: If the Disciples had shared those secrets with the Church, then the Church would be able to impart them to the Church Children, who would then be able to impart them to the world.

RightReason: That is exactly what the Church does on a daily basis.

William: If that were so, then the world would not be in ignorance about The Knowledge of The Secrets of The Kingdom of Heaven.

RightReason: In Scripture we read how the crowds refused to go on with Jesus when He told them they would need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, but the disciples remained with Him.


William: I recall that Jesus was not in public when he instituted this symbolic rite.
Can you cite the script to support your claim?

RightReason: And what did they do? They went on to teach the beautiful secret of the True Presence, in the Holy Eucharist, which the Church celebrates as a perpetual offering every day. What bigger secret is there than unless we eat His Body and drink His Blood we have no life in us.

William: If this is an example of The Knowledge of The Secrets of The Kingdom of Heaven, it falls short of the mark.
Symbolically it is to remind the Disciples of sacrifice for a greater cause and does not reveal the existence of the Metaphysical to those who partake. It does not of itself allow the partaker how to experience the Kingdom of Heaven.

RightReason: But if we do, He will raise us up on the last day.

William: Again, this is belief which is set to consolidate the lost sheep and prepare them for the Safe Place I mentioned - something you have yet to address.

"What these things do is allow for a place to be created in The Kingdom of Heaven whereby the Shepard has made the sheep safe."

RightReason: The Church beautifully teaches the awesome mystery of the Trinity.

William: It teaches such AS a mystery, which is hardly revealing said Mystery.

RightReason: I’d consider that a pretty amazing secret.


William: No doubt you do. But a secret is still a secret until it is revealed. While something remains mystery and is taught that way, it remains mystery.
The Church isn't revealing anything, because it has no ability to do so. Nor should I expect it to be able to do so.

"I do not expect The Christ to use the Church as an instrument to mediate for The Christ in matter regarding The Knowledge of The Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven.
These are shown directly TO the individual directly BY The Christ. "

RightReason: Gosh, one of the most beautiful, wise, and wondrous secrets of the kingdom is the Church’s teaching on contraception.

William: It appears you have wandered into expression idolizing the Church rather than making any actual argument against my own.
"Contraception" has what to do with The Knowledge of The Secrets of The Kingdom of Heaven? It is a subject to do with The Kingdom of Earth - The Physical Universe.

RightReason: Every other church changed her teaching on this, but Christ’s Church has remained constant in imparting this beautiful teaching. What better secret of the openness to life and our role as co creators with God as our path to entering into the kingdom.


William: I do not exist as someone for you to make complaint about the other aspects of the Church. It is neither here nor there in relation to the argument I have presented.
It is becoming apparent that your representation of the Church is ill equipped to handle such argument, and as such, you are reduced to making judgments about others in an effort to make one feel good about one's own position.
In a debate setting, when one attacks the persons rather than the argument, one has already conceded.
You have been given ample opportunity to engage with the argument I have made.
It is apparent that you are unwilling/unable to actually do so, therefore there is no point in continuing this interaction with you, presently, until such a time perhaps eventuates where one is willing to change one's approach.

RightReason: I could go on and on and talk about the secret of the assumption of our Blessed Mother that the Church reveals to her children. So, no idea what you are talking about when you say God’s Church does not reveal the secrets of the kingdom of God.

William: I agree with your last sentence, and have explained to the reader exactly WHY that is the case. The Church was not given The Knowledge of The Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, so it stands to reason that her Children would also have no idea.
One has to want to go there and it appears letting go is the hardest thing for one to do, in regard to that.

Jesus understood that most would choose not to, so he set up a way in which he could make the Children safe in the Kingdom of Heaven, by providing them that safe place through their beliefs, be they Catholic beliefs or any other belief of organised religion.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 376 by RightReason]

Christ gave us His Church to inform us about these things. He apparently thought it was of importance.

No, Christ gave us the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth. John 14:17; 16:13.

****

Jesus doesn’t only reference hell, he describes it in great detail.

He says it is a place of eternal torment (Luke 16:23), of unquenchable fire (Mark 9:43), where the worm does not die (Mark 9:48), where people will gnash their teeth in anguish and regret (Matt. 13:42), and from which there is no return, even to warn loved ones (Luke 16:19–31).

He calls hell a place of “outer darkness� (Matt. 25:30), comparing it to “Gehenna� (Matt. 10:28), which was a trash dump outside the walls of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned and maggots abounded.

Jesus talks about hell more than he talks about heaven, and describes it more vividly. There’s no denying that Jesus knew, believed, and warned against the absolute reality of hell.

An excellent summary, or so it seems.

Anyone who looks a little more closely may see in it enough to cast doubt on the way many draw their conclusion as to the meanings drawn from the details.

Grace and peace.