What is the Biblical view of hell?

[otseng]

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.

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]

Then why did you say this ...

Figurative death? Yes, we can say that we have killed our kind self by being cruel ...

Emphasis MINE

We're you just mentioning something that could not possibly apply to the subject under discussion?

I was attempting to be as fair as possible. It is acceptable to use death in a figurative sense and I gave an example. The verse under discussion, where you want to apply this metaphor, will not allow such an interpretation because, as I explained, lots of pieces do not fit.

Earlier you argued that some want a literal interpretation. I accept a figurative interpretation but not yours. It is one thing to recognise figurative language but quite another to interpret it prperly. My view is there's no great difficulty interpreting what Christ intended to say; the problem arises when we want to apply some foreign meaning to it and we then have to make the figurative text work twice as hard.

I don't know if the interpretation is your own or one you've learned but it is inappropriate.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Not sure if you subscribe to annihilationism or not, but it seeems so from your post. If not, forgive me. If so:

No person is alive here at all. Just the worms (and what kind of worms do carcasses attract?)

Look closer. He says "their worms." 'Their' is a personal, possessive pronoun and thus denotes ownership (the word used there in the Greek does the same thing). Yes, the bodies are decomposing and being eaten by worms. But the worms are symbolic of the torment that the dead are suffering and will never be rid off.

This is an interesting opinion, Pinseeker, but how is it anything more than that? Who taught you this? How do you know that this interpretation is true? What is your evidence?

We say the same kind of thing even today when we say something like, "This is just eating you up" or, "That's just eating away at me..." we are bothered and even tormented to no end. Such will it be in hell for those who go there; this is the Lord's purpose in relating this metaphor.

These are things that the living feel.

Not the dead.

"...but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished..." Ecc 9:5, 6

Jude also describes what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah as an example on display of those who suffer eternal punishment:

• In like manner, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, who indulged in sexual immorality and pursued strange flesh, are on display as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:7

What is in view here is that the fire still burns, not that the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah are no longer alive. In other words, God's judgment, symbolized by fire, is never-ending and eternal.

The punishment is eternal. But that punishment is death, destruction. The second death is eternal.

Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by that fire and are no more. That is what is serving as an example of those who sustain the punishment of eternal fire.



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

[Imprecise Interrupt]

[Replying to post 126 by Imprecise Interrupt]

I think I remember that "the right thing" included honoring Jesus as Lord and doing what he said to do. That involves some kind of belief in him. He said:

"You are my friends if you do what I am commanding you." (John 15:14)

• John 13
  34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.
  
  John 14
  21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.�
  
  John 15
  12 “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. 14 You are my friends if you do what I command you.

It is love that is the commandment. There is no mention of ‘honoring Lord Jesus’. Love entails action, else what is the point? Jesus laid down his life for mankind because of love. Matthew 19 required loving your neighbor as yourself for eternal life, and has Jesus point away from himself and toward God as the authority for this (V 17). The story of the Sheep and the Goats emphasizes action, even when there is no awareness of any ulterior motive for the action. (“When did we…�) In the story of the Good Samaritan there is no mention of honoring Jesus, only God. Loving your neighbor is all about action.

In John 14:21, the word translated as commandments (�ντολάς) is plural. What commandments (plural) did Jesus give? How about Matthew 19?

You seem to think that I disagree with you about ACTIONS. I do not. It's very clear that a person must DO certain things to be God's friend, and part of that is to be JESUS' friend. You wrote yourself that Jesus said, 'you are my friends if you DO what I command you.' I had posted that also.

Matthew 19 is good, showing things that Jesus expects his friends to do or not do.

Your point that all honor or glory goes to God, the Father, is right on the money. Even everything that Jesus did was for his Father's glory.

"God exalted him to a superior position...and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." (Philippians 2:9,11)

My point is that even knowing anything about Jesus is not part of the requirements. In Matthew 19 Jesus makes it clear that it is not about him but doing what God wants. In the Sheep and the Goats the righteous are just doing the right thing as they see it unaware of religious motives but are rewarded for it. In the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan knows nothing about Jesus yet he is considered righteous.

• Romans 2
  14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Paul is saying that everyone has an innate moral sense that they need to follow and on which they will be judged.

Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. (John 14:21)

Keep those moral requirements and you are a friend of Jesus even if you do not know it. That is what I see there.

How can someone "keep Jesus' commandments," as he says at John 14:21, and yet not know anything about him?

By having those commandments be part of an inherent natural morality.

• Romans 2
  14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

[Imprecise Interrupt]

@112

Imprecise Interrupt: Targum Isaiah makes this hint explicit. It is not the bodies, it says, that will be punished. The second death is the souls burning in the burning type of hell usually envisioned by that word. But another puzzling feature is the righteous saying they have seen enough. When they say that, does that mean they stop watching but the punishment goes on forever? Or does the punishment end when the righteous say there has been enough of that? It would be unusual for anyone but God making such a decision, so the implication seems to be eternal punishment of the souls of the wicked.

William: I do not find the idea of GOD reasoning with the righteous as unusual.

It seems to be the other way around, the righteous making a decision for God. I do not see where the idea of God reasoning with the righteous appears in that.

[William]

Imprecise Interrupt: Targum Isaiah makes this hint explicit. It is not the bodies, it says, that will be punished. The second death is the souls burning in the burning type of hell usually envisioned by that word. But another puzzling feature is the righteous saying they have seen enough. When they say that, does that mean they stop watching but the punishment goes on forever? Or does the punishment end when the righteous say there has been enough of that? It would be unusual for anyone but God making such a decision, so the implication seems to be eternal punishment of the souls of the wicked.

William: I do not find the idea of GOD reasoning with the righteous as unusual.

Imprecise Interrupt: It seems to be the other way around, the righteous making a decision for God.

William:

(a) They stop watching but the punishment goes on forever.
(b) The punishment ends. when the righteous say there has been enough of that

Which one is it you'd find unusual?

Imprecise Interrupt: I do not see where the idea of God reasoning with the righteous appears in that.

William: Why can't it be both then?
IF
(a) THEN the righteous are turning from the spectacle and getting on with their existence free from it.
IF
(b) THEN the righteous are saying they have seen enough, and ask GOD to stop it.

[otseng]

I don't believe otseng is incljned to present any specific definitions of what the above are

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 948#970948

I don't mind giving some of those definitions. But I did ask you first to present a term for "the immaterial animated lifesource/breath of life that comes from God" in post 196 and post 245 and I do not recall anything presented yet. I'll gladly present some definitions once we clarify your terminology.

[otseng]

I believe it would be overstating one's case if anyone can claim their view of hell is the absolute truth. Given the scope of the Bible, relatively little is written about it. The majority of text that mentions it in the NT are from Jesus and the book of Revelation (which I assume everybody agrees is a highly symbolic book). Paul, who wrote practically half of the NT, did not even mention anything about hell. Outside of Jesus, we have no credible testimony of anyone experiencing death and able to tell us anything about it. Even after he was resurrected, I don't recall him saying anything about what heaven or hell is like.

It is pointless to try to convince everyone else that your own position is the "correct one". People have been debating this for thousands of years and what makes someone think they now have the correct view? Even the Pharisees and Sadducees had differing views and could not agree on it. It is also pointless to stop debating someone because they do not accept your position.

The best that can be said for one's position is if it's Biblical. If all of scripture harmonizes with one's view, then one can say it's a Biblical position. But, as we have witnessed so far, interpretations depend on how much one takes passages literally or symbolically.

My personal view is that all of our views of hell are not totally correct. How can we totally understand something that requires for someone to be dead to actually experience and understand? We can have a partial understanding and grasp some of its concepts, but we cannot have the full picture of what hell (or heaven) is actually like.

The only thing we can say is a fact is what the Bible states, which is basically just quoting the Bible. Much beyond that is interpretations of scripture. For example, nowhere in the Bible does it say that people are being tortured in hell. It would require interpreting various passages to arrive at that position.

I personally do have a position of what hell is, but I'm trying to be neutral on this and give a fair treatment of all positions. At the conclusion of this debate (if it ever ends), I'll sum up my position.

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't mind giving some of those definitions. But I did ask you first to present a term for "the immaterial animated lifesource/breath of life that comes from God" in post 196 and post 245 and I do not recall anything presented yet. I'll gladly present some definitions once we clarify your terminology.

Did you miss my explanation here?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 967#969967

[PinSeeker]

This is an interesting opinion, Pinseeker, but how is it anything more than that?

That's sort of a funny question, is it not, Tam? Everything anyone post here is their opinion, even you and yours, no?

Who taught you this?

I'll use your own words here: my Lord taught me this. And several other great theologians -- not, of course, to equate them with Jesus, but -- including, oh, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Berkhoff, Lewis, Packer, and Sproul, to name a few.

How do you know that this interpretation is true?

Another funny question. How do you know your interpretation is true? Well, you will say your Lord taught you, right? Well, my Lord taught me. One of us is mistaken. The other may be, too. But what is not possible is that we are both right.

What is your evidence?

Scripture itself.

We say the same kind of thing even today when we say something like, "This is just eating you up" or, "That's just eating away at me..." we are bothered and even tormented to no end. Such will it be in hell for those who go there; this is the Lord's purpose in relating this metaphor.

These are things that the living feel.

Sure, that's the metaphor.

Not the dead.

You may think you can, but you can't know that. Because you've never been dead. I haven't either. The only thing objective that we have is Scripture, and what we do know (or should, anyway) from clear reading of Scripture is that the physically deceased from this life and eternally deceased after the second death remain in a conscious existence, one where God's grace is absolutely removed and His judgment remains, where all good is totally absent and only torment and darkness remain.

"...but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished..." Ecc 9:5, 6

This passage in no way insinuates that those who know nothing or have any further reward or whose name is forgotten or whose love, hate, and jealously have vanished do not exist anymore. Rather, it fits very well with, say, Jesus's parable concerning the tares. They will be thrown into the fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (for there to be weeping and gnashing of teeth, conscious existence is necessary).

The punishment is eternal. But that punishment is death, destruction. The second death is eternal.

Death in the Bible is not cessation of existence. Adam and Eve died the day they partook of the fruit, just as God told them they would. But they were still existing and conscious. Paul speaks of those unsaved, which we all were at one time, as dead. But we were surely existing and conscious. So will it be in death, and the second death for those who remain unsaved.

I agree, the second death and punishment are eternal. Cessation of existence, though, would mean neither the second death nor the punishment is eternal, but only until that cessation of existence.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[JehovahsWitness]

Figurative death? Yes, we can say that we have killed our kind self by being cruel ...

Emphasis MINE

I accept a figurative interpretation but not yours.

Fair enough. I think we can both accept that Jesus spoke about figurative "death" and that *IF* in a parable he did speak about death figuratively, it could, as per your example be applied to a person that is healthy and well but "dead" in some figurative way. Ergo, If that were the case any effects of that "figuratively death" could if course be just as figurative. Indeed if that figurative death, resulted in being transported to a place it would also be .... figurative.


Feel free to come back if the LOGIC above is faulty.



JW