The lake of fire

[Checkpoint]

The lake of fire is found only in the last book of the Bible, Revelation.

It is used by many to support common views of what "hell" is, or will be.

A number of questions could be asked about what it is and why, such as:

Is it literal or metaphorical?

If it is a metaphor, of what?

Is it the same as the Gehenna that Jesus spoke of?

What is meant by being "thrown into" it?

What kind of fire is portrayed, and what is its purpose?

What are your thoughts on these and other relevant issues?

Let the debate begin!

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 165 by peacedove]

peacedove,

I do not see that Satan has been restrained, ever, and I actually see him as having been busy doing his dirty deeds unimpeded for the most part, right up to today. How could Revelation have been fulfilled in the first century? When did Rev.20:10 take place? When was the Devil destroyed "in the lake of fire"?

The Man of Lawlessness is not Satan but the composite religions of Christendom that have set themselves up as God or equal to God. Paul said there would be a falling away---a great apostacy in which people within the Christian congregation would "not treat the flock with tenderness," and would "rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." (Acts 20:29,30) This happened around the close of the first century and just developed over time into a great fake Christianity. We are still dealing with this "Man of Lawlessness," and, like Christ indicated in Matthew 13, this fake Christianity will be destroyed "in the last days," or, "the harvest time." (Matt.13:24-30; 37-43) We are in the last days now, of this system of things. It would benefit each one of us to take this seriously and pay attention to the sign of the times (Matt.24:21)

So you don't see Satan was restrained or released or destroyed. Therefore it must be true?

Is that your method of interpretation: what you see is reality? Your perception determines the doctrines and the correct teaching?

With that method of interpretation the biblical testimony and its context is largely irrelevant.

Paul told the Corinthians off for relying on what they saw (2 Cor 4:18). When Jesus said he saw Satan falling from heaven like lightening, do you think he was referring to what was seen with the natural eyes?

Paul said that the believers were more than conquerors. Do you think that it looked that way facing persecution and trials as they did?

You see these things are not things that you see based on how you feel or what you see with your natural eyes.

So you want to see that the teachings about the Adversary, Satan, are relevant to you and your trials and issues, and those of your world in the 21st Century? Well we need to observe the principle of audience relevance. We need to ask ourselves how was the message relevant to its original audience. You are not the original audience, you are reading someone else's mail 2000 years later. You can't read it as if it was written to you. It was written to them. It means what it meant to them, as it addressed their situation and their time. If you want to apply it to yourself you need to take care as to the original meaning and application before you develop the application for yourself.

Paul said Timothy would come soon. Are you expecting Timothy to come to you?

You need to stop that method of interpretation and address the passages and materials as they actually are, and what they actually teaching about what had happened and what was about to happen to them. If it was about to happen to them, for you it is in the distant past.

No, when Christ said he saw Satan falling from heaven, I have understood it to mean that he was seeing into the future, because Satan wasn't ousted from heaven until Jesus started his rulership as King of God's Kingdom, at the beginning of the 20th century.

Huh? why do you think that Jesus was foreseeing into the 20th Century about the fall of Satan? I don't think it is right to just make such a specific claim without any support from the text, context. What method of interpretation are you using to determine that Jesus was foreseeing and speaking of the 20th century?

The time that the kingdom comes is, in the bible, linked to the fall of Jerusalem. Jesus said that when the signs of the fall of the temple appeared, then the kingdom of God was near (Luke 21:31), And he said it would be within his generation (Luke 21:32).

Jesus was asked when the kingdom of God would come in Luke 17:20-37 and he answered by discussing visible manifestation of the kingdom in the judgement to come upon the corpse at the gathering of the eagles. Was the judgement of the corpse by the eagles, that the disciples would see, in the early 20th century?

Dan 12 puts the resurrection at the time when the righteous shine like the stars. Jesus said that would be in the Kingdom of the Father (Mat 13:43). Dan 12 says this would be fulfilled when the power of the holy people would be completely broken. Did this happen in the early 20th Century?

Jesus said the kingdom was near in the First Century (Mat 4:17). John the Baptiser said the kingdom was near in the First Century (Mat 3:2). Was the early 20th Century near in the early First Century?

You have just made a totally unsupported claim about the time of the fall of Satan and the coming of the kingdom being in the early 20th Century.

Is the fall of Satan from heaven spoken by Jesus the same as the fall of the dragon in Rev 12? If so, how do the events of Rev 12 relate to the early 20th Century? Is the time, times and half a time the same as in Dan 12 when the power of the holy people is completely broken?

How could Satan have been destroyed when we still live with suffering and injustice?

If you correctly identify the Satan that was to be destroyed in the First Century at the end of the 1000 years at the fall of Jerusalem then you would answer your own question.

Understand your own approach: 'I see suffering and injustice, Satan is the author of suffering and injustice, therefore Satan has not already been destroyed.'

This is assuming what you are trying to prove. You need to prove that the Satan that was to be destroyed is the author of the suffering and injustice today. But you can't prove this. You are just making a huge assumption.

The Satan that was to be destroyed was the Jewish persecuting power, the synagogue of Satan, those who say they are Jews but are not. Who did Jesus identify as the seed of the devil if not the Jews who were trying to kill him?

If you are honest you will confess that there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament to teach that the Satan of the New Testament is the author of suffering and injustice in the 20th Century.

You have to ignore practically every clue in the New Testament to conclude that Satan wasn't the Jewish persecuting power of the first generation of Christian saints.

The message back then was relevant to Jesus' audience, and the same message is relevant to us today. You say it is not, yet you haven't said anything about any evidence that Satan is out of the way. Tell me how it is that we are living in a Satan-free world.

We are free from the Satan that was destroyed at the fall of Jerusalem. Paul promised in 57 A.D. that God would soon crush Satan under the feet of the saints. If that promise came true, we are free of that Satan, that Adversary. The snake. Who did John the Baptiser call snakes? Were they Jewish unbelievers and adversaries, or modern adversaries? When did John say the snakes would suffer wrath?

Timothy of course was going to Paul THEN. So what?

The teaching of Revelation is not in the distant past. It is relevant to us today. We certainly have NOT seen the fulfillment of Revelation 20, 21 or 22.

In Rev 1:3, 22:7,10,18 & 19, the book of Revelation is described as a prophecy -- singular. It is not a book of prophecies, it is a single united prophecy. And John said that the appointed time for fulfilment was near (1:3). More than that, he bracketed the book with the statement in 1:3 and 22:10.

That's right, John said that there was a divinely appointed time for the prophecy, singular, that was the entire book of revelation, to be fulfilled, and he said that divinely appointed time was near at the time he wrote it to the seven churches in Asia.

In bracketing the entire book with this, he makes the whole book one united prophecy, to be fulfilled at the appointed time, which he said was near.

He not only said the time was near, he said it was they who would receive the blessings of the prophecies. Blessed is the one who hears, i.e. the original audience, because the appointed time is near (Rev 1:3). The blessings of the prophecies of the tree of life, the garden of eden, the paradise of God, were to come to the original readers, to relieve their sufferings, and the persecution they were facing (Rev 2:7). John was to write about the things that had happened, the things that were, and the things that were about to come. John didn't write the things that would happen eventually but the things that were 'about to come' (Rev 1:19).

It is only a theological supposition that the book wasn't fulfilled shortly after the time it was written, and in our distant past nearly 2000 years ago. If you can't remove this supposition and read what the book actually says, well I'm not sure what else I can do for you to see what the book repeatedly and emphatically says about what it was about and when it was promised to be fulfilled.

Why not embrace the victory that is ours, the vanquishing of the foe, the crushing of the snake under the foot of the seed of the woman, paradise restored to us, God dwelling with his people and the leaves of the tree of life going out every month to continue to heal the nations?

Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but the desire fulfilled is a tree of life. (Pr 13:12). Was their hope deferred? Are our hearts sick for failure of the hope to come when it was promised? Or are we already in the New Jerusalem where the tree of life is?

The Hebrews writer wrote to his readers in the early 60s:
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Heb 12:22-24)

If *they* had come to the realisation of the New Jerusalem promised, how is it that we are still waiting for it to arrive?

You are misinformed about Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24 having been fulfilled completely in the first century. There is a second fulfillment that hasn't happened yet. At Luke 21:31 and 32 he was referring to the last days of this age, which we're living in now. "This generation" is the generation of anointed co-rulers of Christ that would see the end.

Yes, the fall of Satan is the same as in Revelation 12. We can see that it is closely related to Jesus becoming the ruler in God's kingdom (verse 10).

It appears that you believe that there have been two Satans in history, one that is dead and another that still exists now. You choose to reject the evidence that Revelation's prophecy is concerned with THE LAST DAYS, which we are living in now. That is your prerogative.

Go well.

[peacedove]

You are misinformed about Jesus' prophecy at Matthew 24 having been fulfilled completely in the first century. There is a second fulfillment that hasn't happened yet. At Luke 21:31 and 32 he was referring to the last days of this age, which we're living in now. "This generation" is the generation of anointed co-rulers of Christ that would see the end.

Yes, the fall of Satan is the same as in Revelation 12. We can see that it is closely related to Jesus becoming the ruler in God's kingdom (verse 10).

It appears that you believe that there have been two Satans in history, one that is dead and another that still exists now. You choose to reject the evidence that Revelation's prophecy is concerned with THE LAST DAYS, which we are living in now. That is your prerogative.

Go well.

That is all just assertion. You have not provided any evidence at all.

You asserted I was misinformed about the Olivet Discourse being fulfilled in the First Century. Pure assertion. You have not provided a case to refute. Just a claim.

Jesus was asked 'when' would be the end of the age. He answered and said it would be in 'this generation.' That is a time question and a time answer. 'This generation' is not 'that generation.' If Jesus was referring to a future generation, he would have said 'that generation'. But he did not.

That is the most natural and obvious interpretation of the passage and these terms. If you want to dispute that and argue that it means something else, then you need to make your case for why it means what you say it means and why it does not mean what I say that it means -- a natural generation of about 40 years.

You have just asserted that we are living in the last days. You provided NOTHING to support your assertion. I have nothing to refute! According to the New Testament the last days were in the First Century, and the Age to Come was then dawning. Paul wrote that the culmination of the ages was upon the Corinthians in the First Century. And the Christian Age has no end.