SallyF wrote:
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.
Divine Insight wrote:
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 wrote:
We have wandered away from hell but established that it is easy to give ordinary words new meaning...
Well, on purpose or inadvertently, yet. I think it could be the former for some (because it's repulsive or offensive or because they just detest God's Word) and the latter for others (because it's horrifying or "unthinkable").
marco wrote:
... so in the case of words written about hell, we can understand that there is great opportunity for error.
For sure... at least in English.
marco wrote:
On the point you brought up about "this" used in two different ways - there is absolutely no objection to that.
That's a step in the right direction... maybe...
marco wrote:
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.
I think we agree that it's definitely a demonstrative pronoun. It's just that we disagree on its antecedent. The antecedent doesn't have to come immediately before it; to insist that it does is very wooden and opens oneself up to misunderstanding. The antecedent can even be in the previous sentence, as I demonstrated and as is the case in Matthew 16. This is further solidified by the fact that both occurrences of 'this,' one in verse 17 and one in verse 18, have the same antecedent, 'Christ' -- which is a little bit obscured by the fact that the noun antecedent 'Christ' is contained in Peter's confession.
marco wrote:
In fact an antecedent in grammar is the noun or statement to which a relative pronoun refers.
Agreed. In this case, Christ, not Peter. You disagree, and I understand that; I think you have to admit, though, that both positions are at least equally valid... And again, what tilts the scales irrevocably in favor of my understanding is that 'this' is also in the previous verse (17), and both occurrences of 'this' have the same antecedent. But of course you're your own man; you're more than welcome to stay in the camp you are in.
marco wrote:
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 agree, but Jesus will keep those gates at bay (and ultimately defeat them forever -- utterly).
marco wrote:
I've opened up another thread for this discussion since it has moved considerably from the OP.
We - the person we truly are (on the inside) - are not these bodies that we dwell within.
2Peter 2:13
I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body,
Peter clearly distinguishes himself from his body (... as long as "I" live in the tent of this body). That is what this body is - a tent, a vessel, that we dwell within. We are spirits, in clay vessels. This body is the "clothing" - the long garment of skin - that God gave to Adam and Eve, that has sin and death in it. In contrast the "white robe" (Rev 6:9-11; Rev 7:9) is the new body that we will have (that has no sin or death in it, but only life); when we are changed "in a twinkling" (1 Corinthians 15:51-53).
**
We do not cease to exist upon our deaths. Upon our death - the spirit that we are - goes either to the world of the dead (Sheol/Hades/"hell")... or, if we are in Christ, the spirit that we are goes 'under the altar' (Rev 6:9-11).
We sleep in either scenario - since a) the dead are conscious of nothing (Ecc 9:5; 9:10; Psalm 6:5) and since b) the dead - including the dead in Christ - are described as having fallen asleep (1 Thess 4:15, 16; 1 Corinth 15:6, 18, John 11:11-14).
We sleep until the resurrection (the first resurrection for those who are in Christ; the second resurrection for everyone else).
Christ also distinguished between "body and soul" when telling us not to be afraid of those who can destroy the body, but who cannot destroy the soul:
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].
Hell here is translated from "gehenna" (and not from Sheol or Hades, which is the world of the dead, the place where the dead go - except the dead in Christ, who go 'under the altar'). It represents the lake of fire; which "Hades" is also tossed into (and destroyed). No more death = no more dead = no need for a world of the dead.
Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Broad summary of the major Christian views of hell:
1. Eternal conscious torment for the unsaved
All people have an immaterial spirit/soul that survives after physical death. Only the saved will go to heaven. The unsaved will be in eternal torment in hell.
Generally believed by Roman Catholics and Protestants.
2. Conditional immortality and annihilationism
Either the spirit/soul is annihilated in hell or there is no spirit/soul that can go to hell. Nobody will be suffering in hell.
Held by Seventh-day Adventist Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and some Protestants.
3. Temporary torment
The spirit/soul will eventually die in hell like fuel is eventually consumed in a fire.
Held by some Protestants.
4. Nobody would go to hell
God would save all people and nobody would go to hell.
Held by Christian Universalists.
5. Hell does not exist
Hell does not exist as an ontological separation from God.
Held by some Eastern Orthodox (The Eastern Orthodox does not have any official position on hell).
PinSeeker wrote:
I think we agree that it's definitely a demonstrative pronoun. It's just that we disagree on its antecedent. The antecedent doesn't have to come immediately before it; to insist that it does is very wooden and opens oneself up to misunderstanding. The antecedent can even be in the previous sentence, as I demonstrated and as is the case in Matthew 16. This is further solidified by the fact that both occurrences of 'this,' one in verse 17 and one in verse 18, have the same antecedent, 'Christ' -- which is a little bit obscured by the fact that the noun antecedent 'Christ' is contained in Peter's confession.
I should ignore this as not following the OP, despite the interesting points on hell but it is irritating to be misunderstood. I assume you are just confused over pronoun and adjective: the pronoun undoubtedly relates to Peter's previous statement. I never doubted this. The adjective relates to the following word. It has no antecedent. One can, at a pinch, take "this rock" as referring not to Peter but to something said previously. I have argued this is a very strained interpretation. Now if there is further need for clarification on this, I have opened a thread to discuss the point.
Hell, which is vaguely linked with wrong interpretations or heresies, seems to be the destination for many, since few are chosen. One would hope that reasoned argument before the final throne would redeem us. But it doesn't seem to do much here, never mind in the courts of heaven.
As mentioned before, I don't think it really matters how one views hell in terms of being a Christian. God is not going to send anyone to hell because they have an erroneous view of hell.
Though many Protestants and Catholics believe in eternal conscious torment, it is not the only view. Other positions can be held such as conditional immortality (annihilationism), temporary torment, Christian Universalism, and the nonexistence of hell. None of them are necessarily heretical views in terms of salvation.
There is relatively little that is said about hell in the Bible. In the Old Testament, hell (Sheol) is referred to as a place where all people would go when they die. In the New Testatment, Paul never talks about hell. Almost all of the passages about hell in the NT are either from what Jesus said or the book of Revelation.
When Jesus talked about hell, the only group of people that he specifically mentioned about being damned in hell are the scribes and Pharisees.
[Mat 23:2 KJV] 2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
[Mat 23:33 KJV] 33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Jesus never threatened sinners about going to hell. The Bible never says demons are torturing people in hell. And it does not say the devil is ruling over hell.
A major factor that determines how one views hell is how literal should the passages of hell be taken. I believe they should not be taken too literally.
Some examples:
In Matthew, it talks about plucking out eyes and cutting off hands and feet. However, nobody seems to take these literally.
[Mat 5:29 KJV] 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.
[Mat 18:8 KJV] 8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast [them] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
In Luke 16, Jesus talks about the story of Lazarus in hell (Hades). However, is Jesus narrating an actual event or a parable? I believe it's the latter.
[Luk 16:23 KJV] 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
I could find only one passage regarding eternal punishment in the Bible. Matthew 25 talks about everlasting punishment, however it's for people who do not take care of the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and in prison.
[Mat 25:44-46 KJV] 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
I think most would agree the book of Revelation is highly symbolic. So, why should we then choose to take the parts about hell to be literal?
[Rev 6:8 KJV] 8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
Though we don't know what hell exactly would be like, I do believe there are only two possible fates for people after they die - either heaven or hell. However, I do not make any hard claim about the nature of hell. I do make the claim that it's most likely not what is popularly believed about hell. All these descriptions of hell are either not in the Bible or it's taking the passages of hell too literally.
...I don't think it really matters how one views hell in terms of being a Christian. ...
... we don't know what hell exactly would be like, ... I do not make any hard claim about the nature of hell.
Thanks, your conclusions, they reflect very much the same conclusions, in my experience most people after they have attended the major churches of this world for many years, come to. I think it goes without saying how satisfying such answers would be to someone that has just lost a loved one in death and wants to know what has happened to them.
Great thread, thanks for starting it.
JW
DANIEL 11:33
Those having insight among the people will impart understanding to the many.
otseng wrote:
I don't think it really matters how one views hell in terms of being a Christian. God is not going to send anyone to hell because they have an erroneous view of hell.
Agreed.
otseng wrote:
When Jesus talked about hell, the only group of people that he specifically mentioned about being damned in hell are the scribes and Pharisees.
Right, but the scribes and Pharisees represented all unrepentant sinners who believed in their own sufficiency and merit above anything else... really at the exclusion of all else. Jesus did say in the Olivet Discourse (which was addressed to everyone, regardless of any criteria:
"Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees..." (who were supposedly the makers and keepers of the law) "...and the scribes..." (who were the teachers of the law) "...you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
otseng wrote:
A major factor that determines how one views hell is how literal should the passages of hell be taken. I believe they should not be taken too literally. I think most would agree the book of Revelation is highly symbolic. So, why should we then choose to take the parts about hell to be literal?
Agreed.
otseng wrote:
In Luke 16, Jesus talks about the story of Lazarus in hell (Hades). However, is Jesus narrating an actual event or a parable? I believe it's the latter.
Agreed. But it does tell us some things about hell, just as His Kingdom parables tell us some things about heaven.
otseng wrote:
I could find only one passage regarding eternal punishment in the Bible.
Well, um, that's all it takes...
otseng wrote:Though we don't know what hell exactly would be like, I do believe there are only two possible fates for people after they die - either heaven or hell.
Agreed. And I think we can all agree that regardless of you're view of hell, you don't want to go there.
