What is the Biblical view of hell?

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20783
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 360 times
Contact:

What is the Biblical view of hell?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

SallyF wrote: 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.
Divine Insight wrote: 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?

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 10818
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1524 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Post #301

Post by onewithhim »

[Replying to post 273 by Imprecise Interrupt]

You say that "it's about what God wants," and that's true. What does God want, according to the Bible? He apparently wants us to listen TO JESUS.

"While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them and look! a voice out of the cloud said: 'This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. LISTEN TO HIM.'" (Matthew 17:5)


So if God wants us to listen to Jesus, what reason would there be not to?

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 10818
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1524 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Post #302

Post by onewithhim »

otseng wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:
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.
Wait. I thought I had posted the very definition of that in recent posts. I also thought JehovahsWitness had posted links to go to excellent information on what the "spirit" is, as well as what the "soul" is. I think I remember JW explaining quite well the difference.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Post #303

Post by tam »

Peace to you,


(response to Pinseeker, post 291, viewtopic.php?p=971277#971277)

I realize that you have dropped out of the discussion and that is totally fine - we can absolutely agree to disagree; we can also disagree and continue on in love - for Christ, and for one another!

I do think it is a bit unfair to suggest that others who continue the discussion are engaging in empty chatter. For many people, this is a matter of great importance, and the fear generated by this (erroneous) doctrine is very real. It also speaks erroneously about the nature and character of God, who is love.


So I am going to continue, in an attempt to expound the truth more accurately (Acts 18:26).
As an aside, if you want to be really correct about it, Jesus does not teach Scripture – at least directly speaking – to those who have lived since Pentecost (Acts 2). Teaching is actually the Holy Spirit’s role (1 Corinthians 2:10-16). But I digress.
Christ (whose name is not "Jesus" but rather Jaheshua, meaning JAH saves; savoir of JAH.) does not teach scripture per se (it is already written); but He can indeed open the scriptures TO us; just as He did for the apostles.

The anointing (of holy spirit) that we received from Christ (if indeed we have received it), does also teach us.

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.


If we have received that anointing, then we do not need men like Lewis or Calvin (or anyone else) to be teaching us.

Back to the discussion at hand, you want evidence. Well, this is not an exhaustive list, but should be more than sufficient:
  • • Clearly, what we read in Matthew 25 and Luke 16 – directly from the mouth of our Lord – refutes the cessation of existence of the wicked. You surely will agree that we cannot hear and or understand Mark 9 or Isaiah 66 in ignorance of or isolation from Matthew 25 or Luke 16.
The parables in Matthew 25 are describing things that happen when Christ returns; no one is cast into the the lake of fire at this time. The people who are weeping and gnashing their teeth are not dead, but alive. They are weeping and gnashing their teeth in anger, jealousy, hatred (which is how weeping and gnashing of teeth is described as being from in other passages in the bible).

The wicked man sees it and is angry; he gnashes his teeth and melts away; the desire of the wicked will perish! Psalm 112:10

The wicked scheme against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them... Psalm 37:2


I have shared as I have received from my Lord about the sheep and the goats in a few places. One is here: viewtopic.php?p=731804#731804. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, we can see that Christ separates the people of the nations who are alive when He returns, into the sheep and the goats. None of the sheep or the goats are Christians. But to the sheep (whom He calls righteous, see Paul's words at Romans 2:13-16), Christ says:

‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

The sheep do not understand and ask when they did these things for Him. He responds:

"Whatever you did for even a least one of these brothers of mine, you did for me."


For the goats it is the opposite, and He says to them:

‘Depart from me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'


That is the only verse I know of from Matthew 25 that mentions the lake of fire (and the lake of fire is not hell; it cannot be hell since hell is cast into the lake of fire, and so destroyed).

I can only share with you what I received from the spirit about that verse. In most (if not all) translations, there is a comma inserted between the words "cursed" and "into". The comma makes it appear as though the goats are immediately being cast into the lake of fire. But this is incorrect.

I received from the spirit that I should read the verse again (without the comma), and I did so. That of course changed the meaning, and brought this verse in line with everything else my Lord has taught me.

So although the goats are among those cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, they are not cast into that fire at this time (indeed the judgment has not even occurred at this time). They are simply sent away from Christ and into the outer darkness (outside the Kingdom, yet still upon the earth), where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.

• We must also read Luke 23 in light of Matthew 25 (especially, as those on His left will be sent away rather than exterminated) and Luke 16. As Jesus is on the cross at Calvary, He says to the thief on His right, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.� He says nothing to the thief on His left, but His silence cannot be interpreted as “you will not exist anymore,� but rather, “you will be somewhere other than Paradise.�
As mentioned in my previous post, the man would still exist. We are in agreement on that point. But he could not be in the lake of fire, because the dead are not cast into the lake of fire until after Hades gives up the dead in it. That does not occur until the end of the thousand years, at the judgment.
• In Revelation 19, immediately after the coming of Christ, we read of the doom of the Beast and False Prophet (Satan)
Neither the beast nor the false prophet can be Satan. From Rev 20:10:

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown.


– they were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. Then in Revelation 20, we again see the coming of Christ and His execution of the Judgment, and verse 10 specifically states that the Beast and False Prophet, having been thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, are tormented day and night forever and ever.

In 20:11-15, all whose names are not found in the book of life follow Satan and are thrown into the same lake of fire. Their punishment is exactly the same – the second death is consignment to hell, the final abode of the wicked –

It is not possible that the lake of fire is hell. Hades (hell) is emptied out and then Hades (hell) is cast also into the lake of fire - and so destroyed. Just as Death is destroyed. Just as the Beast and the false prophet are destroyed.

Hell cannot be the final abode of the wicked, because hell (hades) gives up the dead in it, and is itself destroyed in the lake of fire.
and by direct inference, they also are tormented day and night forever and ever (20:15).


This is not stated. Hell is also cast into the lake of fire. But how is hell (a place; not a person) being tormented?

So, we agree that Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:42-48 are eschatological pronouncements of God's judgment upon the wicked... but specifically regarding these two passages, the fire is not literal, but rather symbolic of God’s judgment, which is never-ending -- “not quenched� -- for the wicked.


If you believe the fire is the judgment, then it would last only until the judgment is carried out. For instance "Weed" is judged guilty and sentenced to death. That is the judgment of the Judge. "Weed" may weep and gnash his teeth. But that weeping and gnashing of teeth necessarily stops when the sentence (of death) is carried out.
Likewise, the worm… “their worm,� which signifies ownership… symbolizes their torment and resulting anguish, which also is never-ending -- “does not die.� And to have a torment/anguish that does not end, he or she must still have a conscious existence -- shown graphically by Jesus in Luke 16.



Luke 16 is an illustration. The lesson is not that the dead are conscious and suffering. We can know this from Christ, who specifically described the dead as being asleep; and again from Daniel, where the dead are sleeping, and from Ecclesiastes, where the dead know nothing.


You may still disagree with that, and probably do. That should be okay with both of us at this point; we should be able to agree to disagree. As such, we can maintain our fellowship and love for one another in Christ, and I resolve to do those things and urge you to do likewise.

Certainly we an agree to disagree; and maintain love for Christ, and for one another as well. Of course!



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
Last edited by tam on Tue Jul 16, 2019 6:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 10818
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1524 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Post #304

Post by onewithhim »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
PinSeeker wrote:We do read that even the dead will praise and confess Jesus to God's glory (Philippians 2:10-11).
Yes but do we read they will do it while they are still dead?


JW
Of course they will praise Jesus after they are brought back to life again!

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 10818
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1524 times
Been thanked: 422 times

Post #305

Post by onewithhim »

[Replying to post 303 by tam]

I'm sorry, I do not know who you are talking to in your post #303.

User avatar
Imprecise Interrupt
Apprentice
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri May 31, 2019 8:33 am

Post #306

Post by Imprecise Interrupt »

onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 273 by Imprecise Interrupt]

You say that "it's about what God wants," and that's true. What does God want, according to the Bible? He apparently wants us to listen TO JESUS.

"While he was still speaking, look! a bright cloud overshadowed them and look! a voice out of the cloud said: 'This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved. LISTEN TO HIM.'" (Matthew 17:5)


So if God wants us to listen to Jesus, what reason would there be not to?
Who said not to listen to Jesus? But vast numbers of people never had that chance and vast numbers never will have that chance. Nonetheless, in Matthew 25 it is about what people did. In Romans 2, Gentiles (who do not have Jewish Law) nonetheless have the work of the law written on their hearts, a natural sense of morality on which they will be judged.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6522
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 360 times
Been thanked: 331 times
Contact:

Post #307

Post by tam »

onewithhim wrote: [Replying to post 303 by tam]

I'm sorry, I do not know who you are talking to in your post #303.

Sorry, somehow I forgot the link to the post I was responding to. Post 303 is in response to Pinseeker, post 291. I'm going to try and fix that now...


Peace again to you!

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #308

Post by marco »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
marco wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote:

Yes but do we read they will do it while they are still dead?



If they do it when they are NOT dead, then the statement is wrong....
Not If "the dead" are classified as "all people who have experienced death/have died at some point in time".

Well that means that, post mortem, there is some reaction which I understood you deny. If the dead are those eventually restored to life in some new setting, the term "the dead" is incorrect. They would be the risen, the restored or whatever. There's no way round this.

You can claim a figure of speech called prolepsis but I think there is a limit to how far we go in making extensions to our vocabulary and introducing clever figurative language just to accommodate some dubious belief. Why not take Christ at his word?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20783
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 360 times
Contact:

Post #309

Post by otseng »

JehovahsWitness wrote:
otseng wrote:
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
So, the "the immaterial animated lifesource/breath of life that comes from God" is "spirit"?

When Jesus appeared to the disciples, they thought he was a spirit (that could walk and talk).

[Luk 24:37 KJV] 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

But, Jesus replied a spirit does not have flesh and bones (implying a spirit is immaterial and can exist apart from the body).

[Luk 24:39 KJV] 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20783
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 360 times
Contact:

Post #310

Post by otseng »

RightReason wrote: [Replying to post 277 by otseng]
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.
Yes, but doesn’t this then logically show how/why we cannot simply rely on the Bible, indicating that couldn’t be what Jesus expected in the first place?
What else can we rely on? If you say the traditions, then on what is the traditions based on? Either it would be based on the Bible and/or divine revelation. But if divine revelation is not supported by the Bible, why should we trust their divine revelation?
This very thread and conversation demonstrate our primary effort should be in determining who has the right/authority to interpret the Bible. So, it really doesn’t simply come down to, “What does the Bible say?� because as we have proven, that can differ.
It depends on what is meant by "What does the Bible say?"

I've been very careful to quote exactly what the Bible says by copying verses. We should all be able to agree those verses is what the Bible says. Now, to interpret what those verses mean is not necessarily what the Bible says, but what we think it says.

We all have the authority to interpret the Bible. But, I do not think we should then go further and say our interpretation is the only acceptable interpretation.
It also is reasonable to consider who compiled the Bible? This Bible that we are all now using as support/evidence. Why do we accept the Bible in the first place? In doing so, we are accepting the authority of the Catholic Church. Perhaps, since she gave it to us, we ought to listen to what she has to say about it. Just a thought.
That's why I started the thread in TD&D so we would not have to be derailed by this.

Post Reply