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?

[marco]

And I would say that all the Scripture you have posted (in addition to all the Scripture I have posted) demonstrates that Christ did indeed establish a Church -- upon Himself as the Rock …… "

Then Christ would presumably have explained himself better in Aramaic, for in translation he says nothing of the sort. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" is what we call, grammatically, anacoluthon if you are right: it is where a sentence begins one way then continues, with some grammatical break, in another.


THOU art Peter: clear. There is no need to call Peter, Peter, unless he's going to use this somehow.

AND - the conjunction links clauses in a sensible way. That would mean PETER is linked to ROCK, and would explain the demonstrative adjective THIS.


If you extract the meaning "Thou art Peter ----- forget about that and listen to this - I will build my Church on this rock, where I mean "me" by this rock....there is a lot of revision involved to rescue this meaning which, expressed in the words used, would be an almost silly interpretation.

There is no reason for the initial identification of Peter. A simple vocative: Peter, would have sufficed.

Peter, I am the rock and upon this rock I am going to establish my Church. This says what you say - but unfortunately it is NOT what Christ said.

Or maybe I should say, I rely on the Spirit of Truth. God Himself, in the form of the Holy Spirit.

You, on the other hand, apparently rely -- correct me if I am wrong on this -- on the Catholic... fathers?... The Pope(s)?... Anyway, mere men, who I guess you elevate to equality (or at least something very close to it) with God.

At any rate, One of us is (or possibly both of us are) badly mistaken.

The problem with claiming you get your words from Christ is that he wrote nothing down and so we are forced to accept the words others attach to him, or their interpretations. It may be that, without involving yourself with reading the New Testament, you have access to Christ's thoughts but this would be a remarkable claim.

You may not accept that the Pope has authority from Christ, but if we start to accept words written in the Bible, then it is reasonable to take that interpretation of Christ's words. It makes far more sense than your substitution, whether it is right or wrong.

[PinSeeker]

if we start to accept words written in the Bible, then it is reasonable to take that interpretation of Christ's words.

I agree with this; it is reasonable. And it is just as reasonable to read it how I read it -- that the antecedent of 'this' in both verse 17 and 18 is Christ Himself. Catholics will not agree with that, but it's true nonetheless: it makes just as much sense. The problem, really, is the translation from Greek to English, which, as you know, is a very dirty language.

It makes far more sense than your substitution, whether it is right or wrong.

I don't completely disagree; it is at least a little disjointed -- in English. But in the original Greek no. And since it was originally written in Greek, that makes the English (or any other) translation irrelevant in that sense.

Bearing that in mind, I am not denying that Peter is a "rock" of some sort, and I am not even denying that Peter holds some extent of primacy in Christ's universal Church itself. Let me explain:

PETER A ROCK
Peter’s confession is the rock to which Jesus refers, and this makes good sense, but we err if we say that Peter himself is not in any sense a rock upon which the church is built (again, as I have referenced several times, Ephesians 2:22).

But there is a play on words in the original Greek text. Peter’s name, Petros, is based on petra, that is, “rock� (v. 18). In other words, Jesus declares, “Simon, you are the rock, and on this rock I will build my church.� Peter has primacy in the church — a historical primacy, not papal primacy. Jesus addressed Peter as representative of the Twelve. The use of the two different forms of the Greek for rock would be explained by the masculine petros being used of Peter as an individual man and petra being used of him as the representative of the larger group. So, Jesus says, in effect:

• " You are Peter, a small stone (as all other believers are), and on this group of small stones (you and the other apostles) and Me as the cornerstone, I will build My church."

It was not on the apostles themselves, much less on Peter as an individual, that Christ built His church, but on the apostles as His uniquely appointed, endowed, and inspired teachers of the gospel.

PETER'S HISTORICAL PRIMACY
Aside from being the first to confess Christ, Peter is the first apostle to extend the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10), and his leadership and teaching set the stage for the church’s expansion and maturity (chap. 1–15; 1 and 2 Peter).

PETER ON PETER
Two things (I have pointed these things out before and will do so again):

• * Peter, by His own testimony, did not see himself as the rock on which the church was founded. He wrote that we are living stones, but Jesus is the cornerstone. We could say that Peter was the “first rockâ€� among “many rocks.â€�
  
  * Peter said as much in 1 Peter 2:4-5: "Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

THE CHURCH?
The ancient Greek word 'ekklesia' was not primarily a religious word at all; it just meant, “group� or “called-out group.� In describing the later group of His followers and disciples, Jesus deliberately chose a word without a distinctly religious meaning.

CONCLUSION
Thus, in my continuing, unwavering opinion, we must conclude (with John Calvin, as abhorrent as that may be to some):

• “It is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion.â€�

The problem with claiming you get your words from Christ...

I'm not claiming that at all. At least not directly, anyway. Tam does that from time to time, and it's really irritating to me in an eyebrow-raising sort of way because the insinuation is, "I cannot POSSIBLY be in error," and that... Well, we all get things wrong, at least from time to time.

What I AM claiming, on the other hand, is that I believe the Holy Spirit, Who is in each of us believers, has helped me (He is the Helper, according to Jesus Himself in John 14:16, right?) to discern correctly what is being said in Matthew 16. You may not see any difference in the two, and that's... okay.

Bearing that in mind, I am still fully recognizing that it is entirely possible that I may be in error. But I don't think so, and what you and RightReason are saying is doing absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise.

Likewise, I'm quite sure that what I am saying is doing absolutely nothing to convince you to back off of your stance. So there's really no need to continue, is there? I'll be glad to answer that on behalf of all of us: No, there's not.

Grace and peace to you both.

[marco]

And it is just as reasonable to read it how I read it -- that the antecedent of 'this' in both verse 17 and 18 is Christ Himself.

It is straining the interpretation to have "this" relate to a previous paragraph, and make the statement "Thou art Peter" completely irrelevant. Even if we ignore the pun on Peter's name, the words "Thou art Peter AND …." lead us to anticipate an explanation of these words. Your interpretation makes them senseless. Jesus might as well have said: "That man over there is Caiphas and upon this rock I will build my Church." One would take Caiphas as the foundation stone and you would still imagine that there is an antecedent somewhere else that unscrambles the otherwise nonsensical statement.

Catholics will not agree with that, but it's true nonetheless: it makes just as much sense. The problem, really, is the translation from Greek to English, which, as you know, is a very dirty language.

English as I know is a beautiful language. Latin too has its beauty, so here is Christ in Latin:

" Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam."



There is no doubt that Petrus and petram (accusative of petra, a rock) are being played upon. If Christ were describing himself as "petra" it would be ludicrous for the sentence to start with "Tu es Petrus."

You are wrong in your interpretation: there is no room for argument.

But in the original Greek no. And since it was originally written in Greek, that makes the English (or any other) translation irrelevant in that sense.

Christ did not speak in Greek. His words are received in translation.
And is the Latin translation wrong too? The Greek endorses the view that Petros and petra are being punned, better than does the English, which sees no "rock" in the word Peter. So here Peter is being given authority, whether he wants it or not.

Thus, in my continuing, unwavering opinion, we must conclude (with John Calvin, as abhorrent as that may be to some):

• “It is a foolish inference of the Papists, that he received the primacy, and became the universal head of the whole Church. Rank is a different thing from power, and to be elevated to the highest place of honor among a few persons is a different thing from embracing the whole world under his dominion.â€�

It is not meritorious to have an "unwavering" opinion that is incorrect.
Calvin is motivated more by hatred than truth. In any case he is conceding here that Peter was given authority; he resents the idea that this authority passed down through Popes, even though Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against what he has founded on Peter. There is no comparable claim that can be made by any other Church. The best that can be done is to take Christ's words and make them into something ridiculous, simply because one cannot bear to think that somehow Rome might be right here.

Go well.

[PinSeeker]

It is straining the interpretation to have "this" relate to a previous paragraph...

It's not a paragraph, Marco -- and thus no previous paragraph -- it is a narrative, and there are two instances of the word 'this,' one in verse 18, and the previous in the previous sentence, verse 17. They both have the same antecedent, and that antecedent is in verse 16, "Christ." If you insist on saying it is a paragraph, then you have no choice but to say it's all in the same paragraph. But it's a continuous narrative.

If you want to talk about not making good sense, two things:

• 1. It does not make good sense at all that 'this' in verse 16 and 'this' in verse 17 refer to two different things.
  
  2. It does not make good sense to say the antecedent for 'this' in verse 16 is Peter, because Christ hasn't even mentioned Peter yet; that doesn't come until verse 17.

the words "Thou art Peter AND …." lead us to anticipate an explanation of these words.

Admittedly they could, but they could also, with just as much if not more validity, lead us to anticipate no such thing. Observe:

• "You are Marco, and on my opinion I shall not be moved."

That actually illustrates my point quite well, it's very much parallel to Christ's statement in Matthew 16:18. I'm emphasizing to you personally that I stand where I stand and will remain steadfast. Likewise, Jesus is emphasizing to Peter personally that His church is built first and foremost on Himself as the cornerstone.

English as I know is a beautiful language.

This helps to make my point, thank you. English is a beautiful language in one sense, but in another -- namely that it is a hodgepodge, a mixture of other languages that has greatly evolved over time and continues to do so, more being added to it even today. One could argue that makes it beautiful, too, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but it's not pure by any stretch of the imagination, or anywhere close; therefore, it's "dirty."

There is no doubt that Petrus and petram (accusative of petra, a rock) are being played upon. If Christ were describing himself as "petra" it would be ludicrous for the sentence to start with "Tu es Petrus."

Why, because it's capitalized? LOL! Nah. It's a proper noun, his name. That's just linguistics and a rule of prose. Peter is not The Rock, but yes, he is one of the lesser rocks, along with the apostles and prophets, and all believers are rocks also, built on top of the entire foundation (Ephesians 2).

You are wrong in your interpretation: there is no room for argument.

Meh... and I say the exact same thing to you. This disagreement is much bigger than you and I. It has existed for millennia and will continue... until Jesus comes back, of course.

Christ did not speak in Greek.

I never insinuated such. But they are originally written in Greek.

His words are received in translation.

Absolutely.

And is the Latin translation wrong too?

What do you mean, "too"? The English is not "wrong," but rather more easily misunderstandable. Neither is the Latin "wrong." They are just understood incorrectly by some. The Greek is the original. Any dispute regarding the New Testament in any language, English, Latin, French, or Swahili, can only be settled by referring back to the Greek.

The Greek endorses the view that Petros and petra are being punned, better than does the English, which sees no "rock" in the word Peter. So here Peter is being given authority, whether he wants it or not.

LOL! I just got through saying (in the previous post) that the English (and every other language) does see "rock" in the word Peter -- because the Greek does. And I concurred that Peter is given authority by Jesus, but just not the kind -- or magnitude -- of authority some want to attribute it it.

It is not meritorious to have an "unwavering" opinion that is incorrect.

Back at ya.

Calvin is motivated more by hatred than truth.

Sure, hatred of "violence" done to God's Word. That's a good thing. Yes, he and the rest of the Reformers hated the way Catholicism had ripped Christianity from its Biblical roots. I do, too. But Calvin loved his Catholic brethren, and I do, too.

And not to compare Calvin in any way to God, but God is obviously expressing hatred -- Godly, holy hatred, which is actually love, too -- in some of the things he says, too, namely in speaking of sin and anything antithetical to His own glory. Calvin's hatred is of anything that would detract from God's glory, too.

In any case he is conceding here that Peter was given authority; he resents the idea that this authority passed down through Popes...

See above. Yes, Peter was given authority; yes, he resents figurative violence to God's Word.

...even though Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against what he has founded on Peter.

Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against what He founded on Himself. Actually what God the Father founded on Himself (Jesus), because only what has been given to Jesus by the Father is His:

• "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all..." John 10:27-29

There is no comparable claim that can be made by any other Church.

Well, no other Church should. That would be... unwise.

Go well.

The same to you, my friend. Grace and peace to you in the name of Christ, the Rock of our salvation.

[otseng]

OK, I'm back.

But the verses do nothing of the kind. Still, fair enough, perhaps you meant, here are some verses that some claim support a particular position. In that case my response would be ....

Of course it's only what people "claim" to support a particular position. Likewise, your position is only what you claim to be true.

Anyone that proposes that the above verses support the notion of some part of the person surviving after death would presumably be doing so based on something other than the words in the text since the actual words in the text only indicate two things #1) that an individual can die. #2) That that same individual can subsequently be with Christ (who also at some point died).

We have to look at all the scriptures to come up with a particular position.

If someone said : Ah you see! Besty will meet Philip at the party, this indicates she will arrive on a donkey. Would you say the person has really anaylized the words on the page as is or are the injecting their own ideas. Their ideas may be right, they may have knowledge of a donkey but they obviously didn't get that information from the text at hand.

Yes, of course.

No one is disputing souls can refer to the physical body. ...

Well then they should because soul is not the physical body. It refers to a living breathing person (or animal) and figuratively to the life of that one.

Isn't a "living breathing person" a physical entity? Or are you saying a soul always refers to a literal person and a figurative person simultaneously?

Body + spirit = SOUL
Clay + breath of life = SOUL
Flesh & blood + animating force = PERSON/Animal/SOUL

OK, if the soul is the body and spirit, then what is the spirit? The immaterial part of man from God?

BTW, I have not seen how you've responded to:

Regarding the thief on the cross, Jesus said "today". However, Jesus was in the tomb for three days. Was the thief in the tomb with Jesus on that day?

[otseng]

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.

Actually, I have no problem with nephesh meaning the complete person or animal.

nephesh
- soul, self, life, creature, person, appetite, mind, living being, desire, emotion, passion, that which breathes, the breathing substance or being, soul, the inner being of man, living being, self, seat of the appetites.

But, we need to also consider other words that describe man.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath (neshamah) of life; and man became a living soul (nephesh).

neshamah
- breath, spirit, wind, vital breath, inspiration

Gen 2:7 implies there's some special aspect to man that makes him a living soul.

[otseng]

I actually could go on and on here, What you are doing is taking one verse and using it to explain/rationalize a theological position you have taken (I’m guessing your personal theology is that we are all our own interpreters and need only be open to the Holy Spirit and that Jesus never intended one, Holy, authoritative, Apostolic church), but it is a position that is not supported in Scripture. In fact, when the bible is read as a whole we see that Jesus did establish His Church, did give her authority, did expect people to listen to her, and did promise to remain with her. And like I said, then we see from Scripture itself that that is exactly what the first Christians did. So, once again history and public revelation from God shows us these things.

This thread is not to debate about the authority of the Church but what is the Biblical view of hell. Please start another thread to discuss about the authority of the Church. You've discussed it enough in this thread.

[otseng]

For the Jewish view of the afterlife, they do not seem to say much and is ambiguous on it.

What happens after we die? Judaism is famously ambiguous about this matter. The immortality of the soul, the World to Come, and the resurrection of the dead all feature prominently in Jewish tradition, but exactly what these things are and how they relate to each other has always been vague.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... ter-death/

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion.

http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm

Olam ha­Ba (afterlife) is rarely discussed in Jewish life, be it among Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox Jews.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/af ... in-judaism

If Jews have an ambiguous position on the afterlife, it's doubtful we can come to any hard conclusions of the afterlife based on the Hebrew scriptures. I believe debating about the nuances of Hebrew words regarding what happens after we die would not prove to be very fruitful.

I believe the main thing that can be derived from the Hebrew texts is simply an afterlife exists.

[marco]

[Replying to post 424 by PinSeeker]

We have wandered away from hell but established that it is easy to give ordinary words new meaning, so in the case of words written about hell, we can understand that there is great opportunity for error.


On the point you brought up about "this" used in two different ways - there is absolutely no objection to that. You have confused "this" as a demonstrative pronoun in its first usage with "this" as a demonstrative adjective in the second. The adjective has no antecedent - it refers to the following noun. In fact an antecedent in grammar is the noun or statement to which a relative pronoun refers.


If we are not to let the gates of hell prevail against us, it is wise to know how to use grammatical weapons against misunderstanding.

I've opened up another thread for this discussion since it has moved considerably from the OP.


Go well.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 428 by RightReason]

Yes, I'm well aware. The common thread among all such conversions from Protestantism to Catholicism is some variation of this larger theme:

"I didn't like all the disunity; I left Protestantism because I wanted the church leaders to be the exclusive leaders..." (in effect, to do the thinking for us) "...so everybody would be in perfect unity."

Of course no Christian actually likes disunity, but desires, along with Paul, perfect unity in the Spirit regarding all matters regarding Christ (Ephesians 4), but they realize that even if striving together causes temporary hardship or strife, it is personally rewarding and God-glorifying. This striving together and helping each other in all things is "iron sharpening iron," as we read in Proverbs; it's how God made it to be in this fallen world.

And this lack of participation in leadership really promotes disunity and in its worst form is avoidance. Ultimately, it is harmful to the fellowship of the saints (all believers, which the Bible very strongly encourages) and detracting from the one true Authority -- our Rock -- Christ Jesus, in Whom we all, together, live and move and have our being.

Yes, there are plenty of "conversion to Catholicism" stories out there, and most folks who move from Protestantism, especially Calvinism, to Catholicism are very smart people. They move to what we call a "T.R." (Truly Reformed) position, which is to become legalistic, really, in a lot of things, and then it's a short and virtually inevitable jump to Catholicism.

There are also a lot of testimonies out there of people moving in the opposite direction... from Catholicism to Protestantism. Most people moving in this direction become Reformed and even Calvinist -- overwhelmingly more than Arminian (which is why you don't hear about these as much, actually... they recognize in it the work of God by His Spirit based on the Work of Christ rather than focusing on themselves or the Church). Most often, what drives them is that they realize that striving together is necessary so that God is glorified in all things and that any temporary hardship or conflict is actually a good thing (although not good in and of itself) because the Spirit is working even in that; God works all things, even things that we consider "unpleasant," together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

Grace and peace to you, RR.