#1 Jesus on hell

[Wootah]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?v ... 18%3A21-35

21 Then Peter came to Him and said, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven. 23 Therefore the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 And when he had begun to settle accounts, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 25 But as he was not able to pay, his master commanded that he be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and that payment be made. 26 The servant therefore fell down before him, saying, ‘Master, have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 27 Then the master of that servant was moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow servant fell down [a]at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’ 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother [c]his trespasses.”

Jesus tells a parable where the master actually tortures the unforgiving servant until he pays all that was due to him and after the parable says God will do this to each of us if we do not forgive each other.

* You can't torture a dead person or an annihilated person, so we know we have to be alive to be tortured.
* We can't pay our debt against God so we know the punishment is eternal.

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

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

What would you call what is happening when someone is tortured for eternity?

That scripture says “to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him”. I don’t see eternity in that, so are you referring to some other scripture?

How much is due to God? Can you pay for your sins against God?

If there were no possibility of paying the debt, the author would have stopped at, "to the torturers." Instead we have a clear time limit on the torture, "until he should pay all that was due to him." This statement would be absurd if there were no possibility of payment. If there were none, the author wouldn't have mentioned it.

Well of course there is the possibility that the debt could be paid, if he had enough (or accumulated enough over time) to pay it. But the point is that the debt is so large that he will never be able to pay it, even if given many lifetimes to try. That’s the point, TCG. And the parallel is that — Christian brother/sister or not, our debt before a Holy God is far too great for any of us to ever be able to repay, even if given eternity to try.

God never says, intimates, or insinuates anything resembling annihilation, obliteration, extinction, or cessation of existence regarding Satan or unbelievers in eternity; in fact quite the opposite is both written and shown. For them it will be an existence in and of torment and anguish.

Grace and peace to all.

[Tcg]

[Replying to 1213 in post #2]

What would you call what is happening when someone is tortured for eternity?

That scripture says “to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him”. I don’t see eternity in that, so are you referring to some other scripture?

How much is due to God? Can you pay for your sins against God?

If there were no possibility of paying the debt, the author would have stopped at, "to the torturers." Instead we have a clear time limit on the torture, "until he should pay all that was due to him." This statement would be absurd if there were no possibility of payment. If there were none, the author wouldn't have mentioned it.

Well of course there is the possibility that the debt could be paid, if he had enough (or accumulated enough over time) to pay it. But the point is that the debt is so large that he will never be able to pay it, even if given many lifetimes to try.

If that were the point, he would have stated that. He didn't. He taught that it was possible for him to pay his debt and that he would achieve release at that point.


Tcg

[Wootah]

[Replying to Tcg in post #33]

I find it hard to believe an honest reader of the parable would have the impression at the end that anyone is getting out of prison.

In the parable when the king says, 'he can get out when it is paid in full' is mocking the unforgiving servant. The king is not implying that in fact one day it will be possible to get out.

[Tcg]

[Replying to Tcg in post #33]

I find it hard to believe an honest reader of the parable would have the impression at the end that anyone is getting out of prison.

In the parable when the king says, 'he can get out when it is paid in full' is mocking the unforgiving servant. The king is not implying that in fact one day it will be possible to get out.

Are you suggesting that I and those who agree with me aren't honest readers? In any case, your state of incredulity has no bearing on the truth of what the passage clearly states.

Where did you get the impression that the king said this? What we have is the narrator stating this:

34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

This is a statement of fact. There is no record of mocking by either the king or the narrator.

It is amusing to see someone provide a quote from the bible that isn't from the bible especially when they've brought up the subject of honesty, but that amusement doesn't help us understand what the bible is actually teaching.


Tcg

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother [c]his trespasses.”

Jesus tells a parable where the master actually tortures the unforgiving servant until he pays all that was due to him and after the parable says God will do this to each of us if we do not forgive each other.

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

It could be said to be, in a very general sense, "a judgment of hell". But in its specifics, it does not "support traditional doctrine".

In what way, or ways?

When looking at a verse, it is often helpful to scrutinise one or more key words by taking into account the Greek meaning in order to apply it accordingly.

In this case, of the word translated as "torturers".

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 930 basanistḗs (from 928 /basanízō) – a guard in a prison "whose function was to torture prisoners as a phase of judicial examination – prison guard, torturer" (L & N, 1, 37.126).

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 930: βασανιστής

βασανιστής, βασανιστου, ὁ (βασανίζω), one who elicits the truth by the use of the rack, an inquisitor, torturer, ((Antiphon, others); Demosthenes, p. 978, 11; Philo in Flacc. § 11 end; (de concupisc. § 1; quod omn. prob. book 16; Plutarch, an vitios. ad infel. suff. § 2)); used in Matthew 18:34 of a jailer (δεσμοφύλαξ basanistais, basanistaîs.)

What information are we given by these two sources about "the torturers", what their function was for, and how long it would need to last?

"The torturers" were: "a prison guard or jailer whose function was to torture prisoners by the use of the rack, as a phase of judicial examination".

Each torturer was thus "an inquisitor, one who elicits the truth".

How does this support, or not support, "traditional doctrine" of "the judgment of hell"?

[

Good points. The "torturers" simply kept their prisoners from being able to go about their business, bound to one narrow spot, if you will. That would be torture for anyone....just not being able to function. That is how the "torment" of the Devil and his minions is to be understood. They are not physically tortured in flames forever, but are made to be devoid of any action---obliterated. They will not be able to carry on their evil business because they will be annihilated forever.

Thanks.

Not according to the two sources I posted, onewithhim.

What Jesus cited was a form of physical torture as a phase in judicial examination by an inquisitor,, in which the rack was employed to elicit the truth sought.

Jesus would have known this, and chose to use it in his parabolic teaching.

What kind of non-physically induced torment do you see God employing at the coming judicial examination(The Final Judgment)?

I explained this. The Devil will be prevented from moving, essentially, and this would be a "torment" similar to a jailer's "torment" of restricting a prisoner's movements. And wouldn't the Devil be restricted---unable to do anything---if he was dead? That is the sense of "torment" here. He is said to be tormented in the lake of fire forever, right? The lake of fire is SYMBOLIC of complete destruction. So you can get the meaning quite clearly when you accept that.

Onewithhim, your posts are continuing to largely ignore the passage cited in the first post as being the primary source and basis for any answer to the question this thread asks.

This passage is not about the devil and his fate, and is not about the lake of fire or about Hades. It is not about "torture" but about "torturers".

It is a parabolic story Jesus told and then applied to a certain group of people.

Please reread the passage until you get what it says, and about whom it was intended for.

I trust that is not too much to ask of you, and I wish you well.

In addition, pay closer attention to what we are told in the two Greek sources I have posted.

[1213]

... Can you pay for your sins against God?

I don’t think so. I don’t think anyone can pay for sin. But, I could get the wage of sin that is death.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

[PinSeeker]

If there were no possibility of paying the debt, the author would have stopped at, "to the torturers." Instead we have a clear time limit on the torture, "until he should pay all that was due to him." This statement would be absurd if there were no possibility of payment. If there were none, the author wouldn't have mentioned it.

Well of course there is the possibility that the debt could be paid, if he had enough (or accumulated enough over time) to pay it. But the point is that the debt is so large that he will never be able to pay it, even if given many lifetimes to try.

If that were the point, he would have stated that.

He did. At the outset of the parable, we see that the man owed the king ten thousand talents. Ten thousand talents, Tcg, was about 200,000 years of labor. It was so far out of reach that it couldn't possibly have been repaid in his lifetime or many, many more, and that was the point.

Grace and peace to you.

[Tcg]

If there were no possibility of paying the debt, the author would have stopped at, "to the torturers." Instead we have a clear time limit on the torture, "until he should pay all that was due to him." This statement would be absurd if there were no possibility of payment. If there were none, the author wouldn't have mentioned it.

Well of course there is the possibility that the debt could be paid, if he had enough (or accumulated enough over time) to pay it. But the point is that the debt is so large that he will never be able to pay it, even if given many lifetimes to try.

If that were the point, he would have stated that.

He did. At the outset of the parable, we see that the man owed the king ten thousand talents. Ten thousand talents, Tcg, was about 200,000 years of labor. It was so far out of reach that it couldn't possibly have been repaid in his lifetime or many, many more, and that was the point.

Grace and peace to you.

Nope. You are making the mistake of assuming that folks only have wealth based on their own labor. As we see today and as the case was in the ancient past, people make money off the labor of others. King David for instance didn't build his wealth based on his own labor, but rather on the labor of the Israelites. Heck, priests didn't work at all and they ate the finest food in the land.

This man could not possibly have gotten into this level of debt unless he collected funds from other servants and of course the passage reveals that he did just that.


Tcg

[PinSeeker]

If there were no possibility of paying the debt, the author would have stopped at, "to the torturers." Instead we have a clear time limit on the torture, "until he should pay all that was due to him." This statement would be absurd if there were no possibility of payment. If there were none, the author wouldn't have mentioned it.

Well of course there is the possibility that the debt could be paid, if he had enough (or accumulated enough over time) to pay it. But the point is that the debt is so large that he will never be able to pay it, even if given many lifetimes to try.

If that were the point, he would have stated that.

He did. At the outset of the parable, we see that the man owed the king ten thousand talents. Ten thousand talents, Tcg, was about 200,000 years of labor. It was so far out of reach that it couldn't possibly have been repaid in his lifetime or many, many more, and that was the point.
Grace and peace to you.

Nope.

Yep. I appreciate your opinion, though.

You are making the mistake of assuming that folks only have wealth based on their own labor. As we see today and as the case was in the ancient past, people make money off the labor of others. King David for instance didn't build his wealth based on his own labor, but rather on the labor of the Israelites. Heck, priests didn't work at all and they ate the finest food in the land.

Uh, Tcg, the guy was a servant. The lowest guy on the proverbial "totem pole."

This man could not possibly have gotten into this level of debt unless he collected funds from other servants...

Pure speculation. And unmerited speculation at that. He "got there" because of the grace of the king. He represents all of the unrepentant, whose debt can never be repaid to the King, God Himself. The debt of the repentant is the same, but they have been redeemed and forgiven, through the work of atonement by their Savior, Christ Jesus,

...and of course the passage reveals that he did just that.

It most certainly does not.

Grace and peace to you.

[Tcg]

If there were no possibility of paying the debt, the author would have stopped at, "to the torturers." Instead we have a clear time limit on the torture, "until he should pay all that was due to him." This statement would be absurd if there were no possibility of payment. If there were none, the author wouldn't have mentioned it.

Well of course there is the possibility that the debt could be paid, if he had enough (or accumulated enough over time) to pay it. But the point is that the debt is so large that he will never be able to pay it, even if given many lifetimes to try.

If that were the point, he would have stated that.

He did. At the outset of the parable, we see that the man owed the king ten thousand talents. Ten thousand talents, Tcg, was about 200,000 years of labor. It was so far out of reach that it couldn't possibly have been repaid in his lifetime or many, many more, and that was the point.
Grace and peace to you.

Nope.

Yep. I appreciate your opinion, though.

You are making the mistake of assuming that folks only have wealth based on their own labor. As we see today and as the case was in the ancient past, people make money off the labor of others. King David for instance didn't build his wealth based on his own labor, but rather on the labor of the Israelites. Heck, priests didn't work at all and they ate the finest food in the land.

Uh, Tcg, the guy was a servant. The lowest guy on the proverbial "totem pole."

This man could not possibly have gotten into this level of debt unless he collected funds from other servants...

Pure speculation. And unmerited speculation at that. He "got there" because of the grace of the king. He represents all of the unrepentant, whose debt can never be repaid to the King, God Himself. The debt of the repentant is the same, but they have been redeemed and forgiven, through the work of atonement by their Savior, Christ Jesus,

...and of course the passage reveals that he did just that.

It most certainly does not.

Grace and peace to you.

You obviously overlooked this verse:

28 “But that servant went out and found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and he laid hands on him and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’

He clearly collected funds from other servants, unless of course you are suggesting that the bible is flawed in this case. If you are doing that you'll need to make your argument in another subforum. In this one the bible is considered authoritative. I am addressing what the bible actually says.


Tcg