#3 Jesus on Hell

[Wootah]

Matthew 13
The Parable of the Weeds Explained
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

How can there be a place with weeping and gnashing teeth if all the people are dead or annihilated?

How is that not a judgement of hell that supports traditional doctrine?

#1 Jesus on hell: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38453
#2 Jesus on hell: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38457

[tam]

Peace to you,

If it was my opinion, Pinseeker, I would not say that my Lord taught it to me. Because that would then be a lie.

Oh, my. So... okay... would you not say that it is now your opinion (as opposed to what your opinion might have been before), and you regard it as factual because "(your) Lord taught it to (you)"? My goodness. Yeah, I mean, we all have opinions based on something, and we hold onto those opinions to be fact. So, opinion or no, you think something now to be fact, for some reason. It is still, by definition, your opinion. Otherwise, you're kind of saying your brain is not your own but somebody else's, and that's ridiculous.

I think we have a different definition of opinion (definitions of words seems to be a common point of disagreement between us). I think that opinions are what a person thinks, believes, interprets on a matter. I base that based on the definition of the word: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/opinion

I do not hold opinions to be fact.

You have never been able to demonstrate that (punishment for the sake of punishment/eternal conscious torment that can never ceases) is required to meet God's perfect justice.

That is absolutely, unequivocally, undeniably not what I've tried to demonstrate. You're putting words into my mouth, whether intentionally or not, whether you realize it or not.

I misunderstood what you said backaways, sorry. I said punishment for the sake of punishment, and you said, no, for the sake of justice. The point remains though - you have never been able to demonstrate that unending (conscious) punishment - is required to meet God's perfect justice.

LOL!!! Round and round we go... Come on, Tammy. Come on. Okay, the punishment is eternal, as denoted by "eternal punishment," which straight from Scripture and inarguable. Your point may remain, but it's a total non sequitur, because as I've said, I've never tried to demonstrate that unending punishment, conscious or otherwise, is "required to meet God's perfect justice."

I'm pretty sure you have, based on the exchange we had in those links that I provided a few posts back.

But if you are now saying that unending/eteranal punishment (conscious or otherwise), is not required to meet or satisfy God's perfect justice, then we can drop that as one of the reasons that eternal punishment (conscious or otherwise) exists.

Who is it more loving for? Certainly not the people who are in the Kingdom. Why would we want others to suffer for all eternity? Certainly not for the people being imprisoned and who are suffering for all eternity, since, as you said, life imprisonment is much worse than the death penalty. So who is it more loving for?

Well, the short answer -- and this applied to both the former (people in the Kingdom and those sent away) is that everyone, without exception, gets what he/she chooses.

But no one chooses unending pain and torment. No one chooses to feel that.

And as for those who make the wrong choice:

First, in this life, He endures them with much patience (Romans 9:22), even giving them grace (and in many cases much grace) in the process.

Okay.

Second, regarding God's sending or consigning some to hell, this only denotes an action on God's part. The way your question is worded implies that, if anyone goes to hell, regardless what the punishment is, it is the result of God’s unilateral action, and the person being sent to hell is a passive victim, which surely is not the case.

I don't think that at all. Or I would think the same about annihilation and I do not think that.

The question itself is wrong.

Well the quesiton is directly based upon your claim that it is more loving. More loving for whom seems to be a valid question.

A better wording is “If God is love, then how is it loving to consign some to hell?” Well, Paul, in Romans 1:18–20, says that these people actively “suppress the truth.” And God has “made (God’s nature) plain to them,” so these “people are without excuse.” Having said that, I don't think there is any argument that God is perfect in justice; He is. And justice requires adequate payment for crimes committed. So then the question becomes, "what punishment for unrepentant sinners is just?" Well, we don't get to decide that, right?

First - God is merciful. God desires mercy, and He is Himself merciful. So if there is a way to show mercy, He will provide that way. Through His Son, first and foremost. Also, that Son said 'be merciful and mercy will be shown you'. And of course as Christ also said, 'whatever you do for even a least of these brothers of mine, you do for me'. So even if a person is a non-believer, what that person has done for even a least one of His brothers, that person has done for him (unknowingly). And there are people of the nations (non-Christian) who prove by their deeds that the requirements of the law (love) is written upon their heart. Then there is mercy shown to Israel out of love and promises made to Abraham. There is mercy shown to households based on love to a member of that household who is in Christ.

And God may have mercy upon whomever He chooses. That is His right (as I am sure you would agree).

I'll leave it at that, but just add ~ yet again ~ that what happens to folks in hell is only the result of God's action of judgment.

In the version of hell that you are presenting, yes, I understand that.

But even that is not necessary. Serves no point or purpose. You believe it, but there are just so many reasons against it (as we have discussed).

So what makes you claim we are all eternal?

As I've said before, that (among other things) we are created in God's image. But even more basic than that, that He created us in the first place, and that He created us "very good."

1 - But you have also agreed that being made in God's image would not mean that man possesses all the attributes of God. (and man has to eat from the Tree of Life in order to live forever; God does not <- that should indicate that there is a difference between man and God when it comes to living forever)

2 - He created Adam (male and female) good (along with everything else, that is true). But man(kind) did not remain good, right? So how can that be a reason? The rest of creation (including animals and plants) were also created good, were they not? Would you say that all of these also exist forever, every single thing that God created?

(there is a resurrection for animals as well, I do not want to mislead)

3 - Can you provide a direct statement (particularly from Christ, the One who is and speaks truth, the Teacher and Word of God), that states all men are eternal?

So does John, who also makes clear ~ all in Revelation 20:4-6 ~ that this first resurrection will continue to happen on an individual basis throughout this age, these last days (before Christ returns).

What specifically in Revelation 20:4-6, states or even indicates that the first resurrection happens on an individual basis throughout the 'thousand years'?

John is reiterating what Paul and Peter said. Showing it graphically, actually, as it was given to him in his dream.

You did not answer the question, Pinseeker. What specifically in Rev 20:4-6 shows that the first resurrection will continue to happen on an individual basis throughout this age, these last days (before Christ returns)?

I do not conform to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right/true. I listen to Christ and believe what HE says is right/true. There's a big difference between the two (tradition and truth).

Here again you're mixing different things. I said "generally or traditionally accepted,"

What's the difference?

Just because something is generally believed, does not make it true. Just because something is traditionally accepted, does not make it true.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

Thank you and peace also to you!

[PinSeeker]

I think we have a different definition of opinion (definitions of words seems to be a common point of disagreement between us). I think that opinions are what a person thinks, believes, interprets on a matter. I do not hold opinions to be fact.

No, we agree on that, but from the link you provided, I would disagree with this definition (especially the emphasized part): "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." Seems to me that what you say here, that opinions are what a person thinks or believes on a matter, is just fine. You, Tammy, are completely certain of your opinion, and I am of mine. You think your opinion rests on grounds sufficient to produce complete certainty. Well, I think the same of mine. Certainly, one's opinions are not necessarily facts, but can certainly correspond to facts. That's called being right. Obviously, you would say that your opinion does correspond to fact, is factual, and thus is right, in this case, and I would obviously say that is not the case.

Okay, the punishment is eternal, as denoted by "eternal punishment," which straight from Scripture and inarguable. Your point may remain, but it's a total non sequitur, because as I've said, I've never tried to demonstrate that unending punishment, conscious or otherwise, is "required to meet God's perfect justice."

I'm pretty sure you have, based on the exchange we had in those links that I provided a few posts back.

Nope.

Who is it more loving for? Certainly not the people who are in the Kingdom. Why would we want others to suffer for all eternity? Certainly not for the people being imprisoned and who are suffering for all eternity, since, as you said, life imprisonment is much worse than the death penalty. So who is it more loving for?

Well, the short answer -- and this applied to both the former (people in the Kingdom and those sent away) is that everyone, without exception, gets what he/she chooses.

But no one chooses unending pain and torment. No one chooses to feel that.

Of course not. Totally not what I've said in any shape, way, or form. Another non sequitur, really.

First, in this life, He endures them with much patience (Romans 9:22), even giving them grace (and in many cases much grace) in the process.

Okay.

Good.

Second, regarding God's sending or consigning some to hell, this only denotes an action on God's part. The way your question is worded implies that, if anyone goes to hell, regardless what the punishment is, it is the result of God’s unilateral action, and the person being sent to hell is a passive victim, which surely is not the case.

I don't think that at all. Or I would think the same about annihilation and I do not think that.

Right, but the wording of you question nevertheless implies that, regardless of what you would or would not think of annihilation. The central point, though, is still that it only denotes an action on God's part.

The question itself is wrong.

Well the question is directly based upon your claim that it is more loving.

No, it's based on your (implicit, at least) claim that annihilation is more loving. Or at least that God's punishment of sin in the sense of consignment to hell in a conscious state for eternity is less loving than annihilation.

More loving for whom seems to be a valid question.

Not really. I would say that this consignment to hell is just as loving -- albeit in a very different way, difficult to comprehend as it may be -- as consignment to heaven.

A better wording is “If God is love, then how is it loving to consign some to hell?” Well, Paul, in Romans 1:18–20, says that these people actively “suppress the truth.” And God has “made (God’s nature) plain to them,” so these “people are without excuse.” Having said that, I don't think there is any argument that God is perfect in justice; He is. And justice requires adequate payment for crimes committed. So then the question becomes, "what punishment for unrepentant sinners is just?" Well, we don't get to decide that, right?

First - God is merciful. God desires mercy, and He is Himself merciful. So if there is a way to show mercy, He will provide that way. Through His Son, first and foremost. Also, that Son said 'be merciful and mercy will be shown you'. And of course as Christ also said, 'whatever you do for even a least of these brothers of mine, you do for me'. So even if a person is a non-believer, what that person has done for even a least one of His brothers, that person has done for him (unknowingly). And there are people of the nations (non-Christian) who prove by their deeds that the requirements of the law (love) is written upon their heart. Then there is mercy shown to Israel out of love and promises made to Abraham. There is mercy shown to households based on love to a member of that household who is in Christ. And God may have mercy upon whomever He chooses. That is His right (as I am sure you would agree).

You're conflating a couple of things that shouldn't be, but more importantly, no offense intended, but this is a total avoidance (skirting, really) of the question.

I'll leave it at that, but just add ~ yet again ~ that what happens to folks in hell is only the result of God's action of judgment.

In the version of hell that you are presenting, yes, I understand that. But even that is not necessary. Serves no point or purpose.

Well, good that you understand, but that it is "not necessary" and/or "serves no point or purpose" is your opinion. God's punishment of sin is absolutely necessary, and the reason it is necessary is to satisfy His justice, which He will not compromise. The wages of sin, death, must be paid. God's justice demands it. He is a God of justice, and He faithfully brings it forth.

...there are just so many reasons against it (as we have discussed).

In your opinion.

So what makes you claim we are all eternal?

As I've said before, that (among other things) we are created in God's image. But even more basic than that, that He created us in the first place, and that He created us "very good."

1 - But you have also agreed that being made in God's image would not mean that man possesses all the attributes of God. (and man has to eat from the Tree of Life in order to live forever; God does not <- that should indicate that there is a difference between man and God when it comes to living forever)

2 - He created Adam (male and female) good (along with everything else, that is true). But man(kind) did not remain good, right? So how can that be a reason? The rest of creation (including animals and plants) were also created good, were they not? Would you say that all of these also exist forever, every single thing that God created?

3 - Can you provide a direct statement (particularly from Christ, the One who is and speaks truth, the Teacher and Word of God), that states all men are eternal?

1 - Right, we're not eternal with regard to the past. And with regard to the Tree of Life, we are not self-sustaining as God is. I never said there is no difference between man and God when it comes to living forever, but there is a big difference in what you (and others, here) understand "living forever" to mean. "Living forever" (eternal life) is not synonymous with existing consciously forever.

2 - That Adam and Eve fell from grace and became sinful (and bequeathed that state to the entire human race) changes not one iota the fact that God declared His all of His creation very good. With regard to animals and plants (!), I think you're taking things beyond the scope of this conversation, but I think it's quite safe to say that there will be animals and plants in the new heaven and new earth; the pre-Fall earth gives us at least a glimpse into what the new heaven and new earth will be, and certainly with no sin or death.

3 - Well, can you provide a direct statement (particularly from Christ, the One who is and speaks truth, the Teacher and Word of God), that states all men are not eternal? I mean, you may think you can, but if so I would welcome the chance to clarify whatever you might cite. Surely, if you do a word search of 'eternal' in any good concordance, most all the references will be to eternal life, such as "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" and like passages. But you will probably recall what I have said in the past regarding what Jesus did and did not say to the men crucified with Jesus on His right and His left, respectively, regarding paradise. He told the man on His right that he would be with Him (Jesus) in paradise that day, but said nothing to the man on His left, and that cannot be interpreted to mean "You will be annihilated or will no longer exist)," but only that "You will not be with me in paradise," which necessarily implies -- especially with what He says about those on His left in Matthew 25 -- that he would be... somewhere else... and he would be very aware of it. Aside from all that, I would, though, cite Ecclesiastes 3:11, where the writer (and ultimately God) says that God has put eternity into man's heart. There is no specification there that he (He) is only speaking of believers; he (He) is speaking of all men. And in Isaiah 45:17, the prophet (and again ultimately God) tells us that Israel -- all of God's Israel, which contains both Jew and Gentile -- is saved by the LORD with everlasting salvation, and they will not be put to shame or confounded to all eternity, which necessarily implies that some will in fact be put to shame and confounded to all eternity. And again, I would cite what Jesus Himself does actually say in Matthew 25:46 regarding unbelievers, that "these will go away into eternal punishment."

So does John, who also makes clear ~ all in Revelation 20:4-6 ~ that this first resurrection will continue to happen on an individual basis throughout this age, these last days (before Christ returns).

What specifically in Revelation 20:4-6, states or even indicates that the first resurrection happens on an individual basis throughout the 'thousand years'?

John is reiterating what Paul and Peter said. Showing it graphically, actually, as it was given to him in his dream.

You did not answer the question, Pinseeker. What specifically in Rev 20:4-6 shows that the first resurrection will continue to happen on an individual basis throughout this age, these last days (before Christ returns)?[/quote]
Well, the three verses together, as I said, but even more specifically, "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years," which is perfectly clear on its own, but all the more when understood in the light of what Paul says in Ephesians 2, namely that "God (has) made us alive together with Christ... and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him." Him, Who, as you have agreed, I'm pretty sure (you should have anyway) is reigning as King right now.

Hey, I understand how one can look at "(t)hey came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" and regard it as a statement only applicable to the future, but that is a misunderstanding, even a plausible understanding. But even if one remains in that mindset, he or she has to say, honestly, that that can indeed refer to the present and something that is happening and will continue to happen over the thousand years (whether one considers that thousand years one thousand 366 twenty-four hour periods or not) just as plausible. Much, much more so, actually, if one considers that little sentence as a whole, that they came to life AND reigned with Christ for a thousand years, rather than merely, that they reigned with Christ for a thousand years. I mean, if one reads "(t)hey came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" in the way you propagate, that sort of begs the ridiculous question that, did each person in the group referred to as "they" come to life again and again and again over the thousand years? Well of course not; that's a ridiculous thought.

Just because something is generally believed, does not make it true. Just because something is traditionally accepted, does not make it true.

Right, but we're really talking about -- or should be, anyway -- the Holy Spirit working in people's hearts and maintaining the integrity of God's Word. If we understand that as it should be, then "what is generally believed" and therefore "what is orthodox" take on a much bigger and higher meaning.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker has not one bit of disagreement that those suffering the second death have no life anywhere, anytime, or anyplace ever again.

Right, but the disagreement, myth-one ~ as it has been for what seems like eons, now ~ is regarding death (and the absence of life) really means.

But PinSeeker then claims that those who suffered the second death will indeed be in a place where Life is not, and they will know it, and will know that they could have avoided it.

Right, but that you will not accept this is only a product of what I said above, that you have a wrong understanding of what death and the absence of life really is.

The scriptures, as inspired by God state that the dead know not any thing: "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing..." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

And as I've said many times now, this is a total misuse of Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Ecclesiastes as a whole. Totally out of context.

If God is correct that the dead know not any thing, how do the dead know they are in a place where life is not and that they could have avoided it?

If you understood correctly what I said above and previously, namely regarding death and the absence of life, you would not ask such a question.

Grace and peace to you.

[myth-one.com]

PinSeeker has not one bit of disagreement that those suffering the second death have no life anywhere, anytime, or anyplace ever again.

Right, but the disagreement, myth-one ~ as it has been for what seems like eons, now ~ is regarding death (and the absence of life) really means.

They mean the same thing.

But PinSeeker then claims that those who suffered the second death will indeed be in a place where Life is not, and they will know it, and will know that they could have avoided it.

Right, but that you will not accept this is only a product of what I said above, . . .

What you said above is called a contradiction.

The scriptures, as inspired by God state that the dead know not any thing: "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing..." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

And as I've said many times now, this is a total misuse of Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Ecclesiastes as a whole. Totally out of context.

I had no part in writing Ecclesiates.

Argue this one with God. Good luck.

If God is correct that the dead know not any thing, how do the dead know they are in a place where life is not and that they could have avoided it?

If you understood correctly what I said above and previously, namely regarding death and the absence of life, you would not ask such a question.

You are OK with the fact that what you claim contradicts the inspired words of God?

Does God correctly understand what you said above and previously?
==============================================================

Dead people are people who are not alive.

People who are not alive are dead people.

You are dead wrong on this issue.

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker has not one bit of disagreement that those suffering the second death have no life anywhere, anytime, or anyplace ever again.

Right, but the disagreement, myth-one ~ as it has been for what seems like eons, now ~ is regarding death (and the absence of life) really means.

They mean the same thing.

No they don't. This is what it always has come down to. They don't mean the same thing.

I had no part in writing Ecclesiates. Argue this one with God. Good luck.

Well, arguing with God is never a good idea, but even worse is to disagree with Him -- or at least to be at odds with Him -- and that's all you.

Grace and peace to you.

[myth-one.com]

I had no part in writing Ecclesiates. Argue this one with God. Good luck.

Well, arguing with God is never a good idea, but even worse is to disagree with Him -- or at least to be at odds with Him -- and that's all you.

God says the dead know not any thing.

I say that the dead know not any thing.

PinSetter says those who suffered the second death will indeed be in a place where Life is not, and they will know it, and will know that they could have avoided it.

Gee, which one of us is disagreeing with God?

[2timothy316]

And as I've said many times now, this is a total misuse of Ecclesiastes 9:5 and Ecclesiastes as a whole. Totally out of context.

I had no part in writing Ecclesiates.

Argue this one with God. Good luck.

I'm in complete agreement with M1 here. PS keeps saying 'out of context' and 'misuse' but that is not us. Pinseeker's claims are completely at odds with God's word. The more context added the more PS is at odds. PS only way out is to disagree with the Bible.

[2timothy316]

I had no part in writing Ecclesiates. Argue this one with God. Good luck.

Well, arguing with God is never a good idea, but even worse is to disagree with Him -- or at least to be at odds with Him -- and that's all you.

God says the dead know not any thing.

I say that the dead know not any thing.

PinSetter says those who suffered the second death will indeed be in a place where Life is not, and they will know it, and will know that they could have avoided it.

Gee, which one of us is disagreeing with God?

Pinseeker is disagreeing with God's word.

[Checkpoint]

Like I have said, speaking from our perspective -- or rather putting it in terms we can readily understand -- life imprisonment is, really, much worse than the death penalty.

No Pinseeker, God is the One who has chosen which penalty to impose, not you or anyone else.

Well, think about it, Checkpoint. You're kind of making -- unknowingly, I guess -- the same point as me, here. I'm putting things in, like I said, terms we can readily understand. Yes, God is completely sovereign; I have never said or implied anything remotely dissimilar to that.

That penalty has been paid on our behalf by Jesus the Anointed One, and it was certainly not life imprisonment.

Sure. But the wages of sin is death. Which you know, I'm well aware; we all agree on that. But death, in God's economy, is like -- on a far greater level but like -- life imprisonment.

The ransom he paid was death, and that death was for three days and three nights, just as he had, beforehand, said it would be.

Right. Sure. As you well know, though, I'm sure, Jesus was that very day in paradise, and the thief crucified on His right was with Him, just as He said he/they would be. So somehow you have to figure out what to do with that Or not, if you don't want to, but that's up to you; it is what it is, whether you do or not.

We fail to begin to deal with death and hell, when we arbitrarily make significant changes we then call "putting it in terms we can readily understand".

Nobody's changing anything. You took my comment totally out of context, totally misunderstood it, or... something. Hopefully I made things a bit clearer with my comments here. To this, though, I would say that Jesus did much the same thing with His parables. Not that I am comparing myself in any way to Jesus, but surely you understand my point.

Grace and peace to you.

Yes, I think I do now understand your point, and your point and points of view.

That is, I get what you are saying - over and over - and the basics of why you say what you do - many times -.

That is not saying I agree with what you say and with why you say it. (and vice-versa, no doubt!)

These three threads are on a "judgment of hell". Each of the three presents a parabolic story told by Jesus, and then asks if it supports what is portrayed and taught by "traditional doctrine".
These debates have covered various things related to the question asked.

One of these is what "death" is and is not, in the Bible.

The problem is, the Bible talks of more than one death; in fact there are three. Spiritual death, physical death, and the Second Death.

So the obvious questions that arise are, why is this so, and does "death" mean the same in each, or are there differences?

Grace and peace to you all.

[otseng]

Well, arguing with God is never a good idea, but even worse is to disagree with Him -- or at least to be at odds with Him -- and that's all you.

Moderator Final Warning

Please do not comment on other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.