#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

[myth-one.com]

This pain is their worm that will not die.

Because that makes so much more sense.

When one realizes that the pain is figurative and is to be understood as emotional anguish and torment, and that the worm itself is not literal but figurative and symbolic of the unending pain/anguish/torment, then it makes perfect sense. To think otherwise is to show, intentionally or otherwise, lack of linguistic intelligence. As I said, the inability or unwillingness to read apocalyptic literature as it should be read (rather the way one would read a Dick and Jane first grade primer) is absolutely astonishing.

Grace and peace to you.

The Bible identifies the second death as being cast into the lake of fire -- "This is the second death."

It then states that whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

So whosoever is cast into the lake of fire, will experience the "second death."

But you believe every human ever created is condemned to an everlasting existence as a result of being born as a human.

And you believe the lake is not real anyway.

So "second death" must be figurative, symbolic, or some other self interpretation from your point of view.
==============================================================

So what is your private interpretation for the word "death" as used in the phrase: "This is the second death?"

[PinSeeker]

The Bible identifies the second death as being cast into the lake of fire -- "This is the second death." It then states that whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. So whosoever is cast into the lake of fire, will experience the "second death."

All very true, but again, your understanding of these things is terribly faulty.

But you believe every human ever created is condemned to an everlasting existence as a result of being born as a human.

Well, condemned to an everlasting existence under the result of the final, irrevocable, lasting-for-eternity judgment of God, in a place totally devoid of His grace, and away from the presence of the One Who is Life, Jesus Christ... This is true, final death. So, yes, to say this is contradictory to the second, final death is absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

And you believe the lake is not real anyway.

Well, in the sense that it's not actually a lake, yes. But it's a real place, for sure. It's depicted as a "lake of fire" indicates that the people in that very real place are totally immersed in the final, permanent, irrevocable judgment of God, the One Who is a consuming fire.

So "second death" must be figurative, symbolic, or some other self interpretation from your point of view.

Absolutely not. It's just that your concept of the second death is woefully inaccurate.

So what is your private interpretation for the word "death" as used in the phrase: "This is the second death?"

This is the question I've been wanting you to ask yourself for what seems like eons, now, myth-one. I've answered it many times, the latest being just above. Again, it is an everlasting existence under the result of the final, irrevocable, lasting-for-eternity judgment of God, in a place totally devoid of His grace, and away from the presence of the One Who is Life, Jesus Christ... This is true, final death.

[myth-one.com]

The Bible identifies the second death as being cast into the lake of fire -- "This is the second death." It then states that whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. So whosoever is cast into the lake of fire, will experience the "second death."

All very true, . . .

But you believe every human ever created is condemned to an everlasting existence as a result of being born as a human.

Well, condemned to an everlasting existence . . .

A living being that exists forever is not dead. So now you do not believe that any nonbeliever suffers the second death -- which you just stated was "very true" above.

And you believe the lake is not real anyway.

Well, in the sense that it's not actually a lake, yes.

So God got that one wrong?

So "second death" must be figurative, symbolic, or some other self interpretation from your point of view.

Absolutely not.

So what is your private interpretation for the word "death" as used in the phrase: "This is the second death?"

This is the question I've been wanting you to ask yourself for what seems like eons, now, myth-one. I've answered it many times, the latest being just above. Again, it is an everlasting existence under the result of the final, irrevocable, lasting-for-eternity judgment of God, in a place totally devoid of His grace, and away from the presence of the One Who is Life, Jesus Christ... This is true, final death.[/quote]
Dead beings are not alive.

Existing forever not the same as being dead.

In your private interpretation, you have nonbelievers equal to the believers, in that all have everlasting life!!

Only the believers are supposed to inherit everlasting life:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive a hundred-fold, and shall inherit eternal life. (Matthew 19:29)

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)

That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:7)

And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life. (I John 2:25)

[PinSeeker]

A living being that exists forever is not dead.

Not so, as I've explained many times. For those of us who are Christians, we were dead in our sin, until we were made alive in Christ. Others who are not in Christ are still in that state. In talking to Christians in Ephesus, Paul said, "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved -- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..." So biblically, being dead is obviously not non-existence.

So now....

So now nothing. What's true is true.

And you believe the lake is not real anyway.

Well, in the sense that it's not actually a lake, yes.

So God got that one wrong?

No, that's all you, my friend. All you. Think about it, myth-one. A lake is a body of water, not fire. Maybe that will give you a little kick-start. I doubt it, but maybe...

So "second death" must be figurative, symbolic, or some other self interpretation from your point of view.

No, it's very real, but not in the wooden sense you think of it.

So what is your private interpretation for the word "death" as used in the phrase: "This is the second death?"

This is the question I've been wanting you to ask yourself for what seems like eons, now, myth-one. I've answered it many times, the latest being just above. Again, it is an everlasting existence under the result of the final, irrevocable, lasting-for-eternity judgment of God, in a place totally devoid of His grace, and away from the presence of the One Who is Life, Jesus Christ... This is true, final death.

Dead beings are not alive.

Right, but dead beings -- in eternity, having experienced the second (final, permanent) death -- are still beings none the less.

Existing forever not the same as being dead.

Not necessarily, no. Some who will exist forever will have experienced the second death; they will have been resurrected to judgment (John 5:29b). The others not so much; they will have been resurrected to life (John 5:29a). This is the dichotomy, myth-one: life or judgment, not life or non-existence.

In your private interpretation, you have nonbelievers equal to the believers, in that all have everlasting life!!

Absolutely not. Only in your private interpretation -- twisting, actually -- of my very clear understanding.

Only the believers are supposed to inherit everlasting life...

I have never said otherwise.

Grace and peace to you, myth-one.

[myth-one.com]

A living being that exists forever is not dead.

Not so, as I've explained many times.

Yes, you've explained it many times -- but never successfully.

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

According to Ecclesiastes 9:5, your "dead" living beings:

1. Know not any thing
2. No longer have any reward.
3. And even the memory of them is forgotten.

Like being obliterated or annihilated.

[tam]

Peace to you,

This pain is their worm that will not die.

Because that makes so much more sense.

When one realizes

One can only 'realize' something that is true. What you have presented is just an interpretation. One that makes no more sense than the other interpretation that you find mind-boggling.

Why would the worm represent pain? The reference is to the verse about corpses lying about, their worms not dying, etc. If the worms represent maggots, there is no pain, because corpses are dead things that experience no pain.

So hopefully no one is hanging their 'eternal torment in hell' hat on the interpretation of the phrase 'their worm does not die". Because that was describing corpses which feel nothing.

Shame would make more sense (being a dead thing with maggots), not shame that a person feels (corpses, dead things, feel nothing), but rather a position of shame.

**

that the pain is figurative and is to be understood as emotional anguish and torment,

Anguish and torment are real pain, not figurative. Emotional, rather than physical, though emotional pain can lead to physical pain as well. The point is moot though unless you can demonstrate that 'their worm does not die' represents unending emotional anguish and torment.

and that the worm itself is not literal but figurative and symbolic of the unending pain/anguish/torment, then it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps, if that is what 'their worm does not die' meant, but there is no reason to accept that.

As I said, the inability or unwillingness to read apocalyptic literature as it should be read (rather the way one would read a Dick and Jane first grade primer) is absolutely astonishing.

"As it should be read", according to whom? Who gets to say how something should be read, and why?

If one wants to know what something means, then one must come to and listen to Christ. He is the Truth and the One who leads His sheep into all truth. He is the One who opens minds to understanding the scriptures, including Revelation.


Not man. Not religion. Not even a book.

Man/religion invented the doctrine of 'hell' (as a place of eternal torment).

Christ Jaheshua did not/does not teach it.

It is also not found in the OT. Nor even in the NT. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich man - the go-to for many people re: hell - is not about eternal torment (the parable cannot be about that, since the Rich man is in Hades - the world of the dead - which is emptied out at the Judgment. Rev 20: 13).

Also, if the lake of fire was 'judgment' as has been claimed by some, then what? Hades - the world of the dead - misbehaved and needed to be judged? How does that make sense? Hades is a place - the world of the dead - not a person. Yet Hades is cast into the lake of fire. (Meaning that Hades is destroyed, because there will be no more dead; hence no more need for a world OF the dead.)

There will not be some 'dimension' existing eternally alongside the rest of creation, where the people in that dimension are in perpetual pain and anguish, while others just go blithely about their perpetual bliss. THAT is even more absurd than the previously mentioned interpretations of 'their worm does not die'.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PinSeeker]

One can only 'realize' something that is true.

Absolutely.

What you have presented is just an interpretation.

And I would say the exact same to you. And we would both be right.

One that makes no more sense than the other interpretation that you find mind-boggling.

No, you mis-interpret my remark. See what I did there? I would say both “make sense,” but only one can possibly be correct, because the two explanations are diametrically opposed. You’re “interpretation” does make sense, but it’s wrong.

Why would the worm represent pain?

Describe pain, Tammy. There are two definitions of pain, and they are very different. And the one that you are clinging to here… as the only one possible, I guess… is not the correct definition of pain.

Shame would make more sense (being a dead thing with maggots), not shame that a person feels (corpses, dead things, feel nothing), but rather a position of shame.

Close! Yes, shame is, if not right on, a very close synonym to anguish and torment, as Jesus uses those terms in Luke 16. The clarification I would make is that shame is only a part – but a significant part, nonetheless – of the anguish described in that passage. And it’s very painful, although not physical. Much shame can certainly cause physical pain (a headache, maybe), but that’s beyond the question, really.

…that the pain is figurative and is to be understood as emotional anguish and torment,

Anguish and torment are real pain, not figurative. Emotional, rather than physical, though emotional pain can lead to physical pain as well.

Well now you’re making my point for me. The pain is not physical (much less inflicted by someone else) is what I meant by ‘figurative.’ Yes, it’s a real thing. But not physical pain. So you get that, which is great!

The point is moot though unless you can demonstrate that 'their worm does not die' represents unending emotional anguish and torment.

The Bible does that for me: Jesus does a fine job of that in Luke 16, John does, too in both John 5 and Revelation 20, as demonstrated several times (by me and others).

…and that the worm itself is not literal but figurative and symbolic of the unending pain/anguish/torment, then it makes perfect sense.

Perhaps…

Well, yes. There’s no ‘perhaps’ about it.

…if that is what 'their worm does not die' meant, but there is no reason to accept that.

It’s every bit as reasonable to accept that as it is your understanding of that same thing. Every bit. And yes, your understanding is very reasonable, but it’s just very wrong. No offense intended.

As I said, the inability or unwillingness to read apocalyptic literature as it should be read (rather the way one would read a Dick and Jane first grade primer) is absolutely astonishing.

"As it should be read", according to whom? Who gets to say how something should be read, and why?

The point stands. It is what it is.

If one wants to know what something means, then one must come to and listen to Christ. He is the Truth and the One who leads His sheep into all truth. He is the One who opens minds to understanding the scriptures, including Revelation.

Totally agreed. But I know you don’t think you do, but why do you reject his portrayal of hell in Luke 16?

Man/religion invented the doctrine of 'hell' (as a place of eternal torment).

Only because of the way Christ portrayed it.

Christ Jaheshua did not/does not teach it.

He portrayed it in the manner I am; I am only repeating what He said.

It is also not found in the OT.

Yes it is; see Psalm 9, particularly verses 15-17. Regarding “sheol,” the word “Sheol” in Hebrew is used in a variety of ways in the Old Testament. Sometimes it refers to the realm of the dead or the nether world. Sometimes it has a more of a general connotation: both the righteous and the wicked go to Sheol, in terms of the grave. But sometimes it has much more of a negative connotation in terms of the wicked going to Sheol, and it being a place that is not good, a place in which it’s not a part of the land of the living, so it has a negative connotation – which is the case with Psalm 9:15-17 and other passages like it. And that prepares us then for the New Testament, for when Jesus comes on the scene, and in the teaching of Jesus to the people in his context there was a more fully developed idea that there is a place of judgment.

Nor even in the NT.

Yes it is. See Matthew 25, Luke 16, Mark 9, John 5, and Revelation 20.

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich man - the go-to for many people re: hell - is not about eternal torment (the parable cannot be about that…

It’s a portrayal of the eternal fate of the unrepentant. It’s not about the torment, in particular, no. But it is about what the unrepentant are destined for. Your denial of this is, well, okay with me, but it is what it is.

…the Rich man is in Hades - the world of the dead - which is emptied out at the Judgment. Rev 20: 13).

Ah! “Emptied out,” yes. Fantastic. Yes, let’s take a look at that. Actually, let’s take a look at something else similar, and then come back to it. In Philippians 2, Paul tells us that Jesus emptied Himself (verse 7) of His “equality with God” (the Father… verse 6). He did not cease to possess it, but emptied Himself of it for man’s sake, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men, and ultimately humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. In that passage, ‘emptied out’ is absolutely not used in the sense of obliteration, but giving up, or giving over to. Jesus gave up His status as equal with the Father in stature (not position; we’ve had that discussion, too; the Father has a role of authority or leadership with respect to the Son, though they are equal in deity and attributes). In a similar vein – because the same verbiage is used by John – Hades (which, like the Hebrew ‘Sheol,’ is similarly used in a variety of ways but sometimes with the most negative of connotations) gives up the dead at the judgment, and Christ sends these people – who are still unrepentant sinners – away into “outer darkness,” as it is called in Matthew 25. Death and Hades (concepts, not people, of course) actually join the devil and his minions and the unrepentant in the lake of fire – the place of the eternal carrying out of God’s final, permanent, irrevocable judgment; all of these are totally removed – for eternity -- from the new heaven and new earth and all who dwell there. So yes, the devil and all his minions and all the unrepentant dwell in death and in Hades in the age to come (eternity), where they are tormented day and night forever and ever.

Also, if the lake of fire was 'judgment' as has been claimed by some, then what? Hades - the world of the dead - misbehaved and needed to be judged?

No, see above.

Hades is a place - the world of the dead - not a person. Yet Hades is cast into the lake of fire.

Right; it is totally removed and no longer a possibility in the new heaven and new earth.

…Meaning that Hades is destroyed…

Nope. God created Hades, too. It will not be destroyed in the sense of being nonexistent. Nonexistent in the new heaven and new earth, for sure, but not absolutely nonexistent. See above.

…there will be no more dead…

Right, in the new heaven and new earth. See above.

There will not be some 'dimension' existing eternally alongside the rest of creation, where the people in that dimension are in perpetual pain and anguish, while others just go blithely about their perpetual bliss.

Yeah, “dimension?” I wouldn’t call it a separate dimension. Just a separate… well, a separate place.

THAT is even more absurd than the previously mentioned interpretations of 'their worm does not die'.

Well, you know what they say about opinions. They’re like noses or belly-buttons…

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[Tcg]

Ruined and without hope and thus miserable, in anguish and torment -- utterly destroyed... but existing nonetheless.

Utterly destroyed and yet still existing? That is some strange kind of magic.


Tcg

[PinSeeker]

Utterly destroyed and yet still existing? That is some strange kind of magic.

One perfectly valid definition of 'destroy' is "(to) put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it." But another definition, just as valid, is "(to) ruin (someone) emotionally or spiritually," and also "(to) defeat (someone) utterly." There's no such thing as "magic."

Grace and peace to you, Tcg.

[Checkpoint]

Utterly destroyed and yet still existing? That is some strange kind of magic.

One perfectly valid definition of 'destroy' is "(to) put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it." But another definition, just as valid, is "(to) ruin (someone) emotionally or spiritually," and also "(to) defeat (someone) utterly." There's no such thing as "magic."

Thanks for that confirmation.

Which is that "destroy" has as "one perfectly valid definition of...put an end to the existence of".

God bless and keep you.