Civil. Respectful. Intelligent. Thoughtful. Challenging.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52  Next

Reply to topic
otseng
First Post
PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:32 pm  What is the Biblical view of hell? Reply with quote

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?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 491: Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:48 pm
Reply

Like this post
Peace to you bluegreenearth.

Just an fyi (to help you get a feel for the ins and outs of this forum)...

Quote:
[quote="bluegreenearth"]
Eloi wrote:

[Replying to bluegreenearth]

I thought in this section of the forum the veracity of the Bible was not to question.


I must admit that if this forum prohibits anyone from questioning the veracity of the Bible, I'm not aware of such a rule or even its purpose. Any intellectually honest person seeking the truth would never prohibit the questioning of any proposed idea including the idea that the Bible is a reliable source of information for the concept of hell.



The following does not apply to the entire forum, but only this particular sub-forum ("theology, doctrine, dogma"):


The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3168

See also here for the guidelines of this sub-forum (theology, doctrine, dogma):

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11496

Peace to you!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 492: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:54 pm
Reply

Like this post
tam wrote:


I need Christ (Jaheshua) to lead me into all truth (including in what is written if need be).


So, you are presupposing Christ exists as described in the Bible? Are you presupposing that your fallible human mind is perfectly incapable of being mistaken about something you believe to be true?

Quote:
I'm not sure how much interpretation goes into a simple retelling of events.


You'd be surprised how much interpretation goes into it. Consider the following statement and consider all the different ways it could be interpreted or if it can be considered a simple retelling of an event:

"Someone considered to be a lady killer was seen choking the chicken in the yard with a clothesline."

Was the person in question a lady known to kill people or someone known for killing ladies?

Was the "lady killer" using a clothesline to choke the chicken in the yard or choking the chicken with her/his bare hands in a yard where a clothesline had been installed?

Quote:
I always believed in God (long before I ever read the bible)... and no one comes to the Son unless the Father draws them. God is the One who led me to Christ (Jaheshua), His Son.


Are you presupposing your experience of God is sufficiently reliable to justify the belief that God led you to Christ? If someone else has an experience of God that leads them to Mohammed, is that person's experience sufficiently reliable to justify the belief? If not, why is such an experience sufficient for you but not other people who reach a different conclusion?

Quote:
As for some reasoning about what is written, I could hear and see the beautiful truth and wisdom in His words and teaching. This helped me to believe what He said about Himself as well. How could a man speak such beautiful truth and wisdom (all from love) and at the same time be a liar about who He is and who He came from? That did not make sense to me. (Of course you or someone else may then suggest that the people who wrote about Him could have been lying, but there is the same kind of dilemma - the beautiful truths from His teachings. So someone else taught such beautiful truth and wisdom, but that person was a liar?)


Are there not any beautiful truths we can learn from the Legend of King Arthur and The Knights of The Round Table even though the consensus of experts no longer believe that story is describing anything historical? Was the author of that story a liar?

Quote:
Because my Lord (Jaheshua, not "Jesus") is not dead; nor is He just some character in a book that a person can read about but never actually know (or be known BY).

Christ lives and speaks, and His sheep listen to His voice:


This is an unfalsifiable claim. It can be neither proved nor disproved. When you can transform this claim in such a way that it can be falsified and then demonstrate where it survives every test you and others have designed to try and falsify it, I'll give it more consideration.

Quote:
I'm not sure this conclusion or question still applies based upon the above. But even if a person first heard about Christ (and God) from something written or from another person bearing witness, how would that prevent them from going to Christ (or God) directly, to learn more accurately (truthfully) from them? To come to know them and to be known by them?


I never implied anything about circular logic preventing people from believing they are going directly to Christ. In fact, circular logic is precisely what enables someone to believe they are communicating directly with God in a blatant demonstration of confirmation bias.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 493: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:51 pm
Reply

Like this post
tam wrote:

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 475 by onewithhim]


Quote:
There is nothing in the Bible that shows that the dead go anywhere after they die. "Hades" is the grave, and the "altar" described in Revelation is purely metaphorical. Most everything in Revelation is symbolic.



There is plenty in the Bible to show that the dead go somewhere after they die. The WTS simply teaches (in error) that all those many verses and descriptions are metaphorical or symbolic.




**


As for soul and spirit, of course spirit can refer to "holy spirit" that God gives (through Christ)... - as well as the Spirit that Christ IS (and that God IS - and that we ARE as well).



When referring to the spirit/soul in my previous post, I was speaking in the same way that Christ spoke here:

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in [hell]. Matt 10:28

He has made an obvious distinction between the soul and the body (regardless of what word the scribes used).



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

The distinction Christ made was this: A person's BODY can be killed, but his life as a soul---a complete human being (which is more than just a body; it's everything about that individual, including his mental processes)---cannot be eradicated, because God remembers everything about that person.

Body----can be killed
Soul (which is body AND mental attributes)---cannot be done away with completely by anyone because God remembers him and can make him alive again

That is the distinction.

It is not just the Watchtower that states that "soul" and "spirit" are different and that "hell" is not a fiery place. Many Bible scholars know this, and the honest ones admit it.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 494: Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:55 pm
Reply

Like this post (2): 2timothy316, brianbbs67
Eloi wrote:

[Replying to post 477 by tam]

There is nothing symbolic on these words:

Psalm. 146:4 His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground;
In that day his thoughts do perish.

Good point. The "spirit" here is God's own spirit which causes the breath of life to animate the individual. When he dies, that breath of life is gone, and Jehovah has that person's future in His hands.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 495: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:03 pm
Reply

Like this post
bluegreenearth wrote:

Eloi wrote:

[Replying to post 473 by bluegreenearth]

Even if there are too many beliefs about "hell", it does not mean that the Scriptures are not clear about it. Most of the beliefs that religions teach are not originated from the Bible, even if they try to justify them with the Bible.

When a person is interested on what Bible really teaches, he goes to the Bible to learn, not to teologians. The word "hell" is not biblical, and the concept asociated with that word is not biblical. The truth about these matters is in the Bible.

The Bible uses diferent words to describe the place where dead go, and none of them is related to a place of fire where people's soul is tortured. That is a doctrine originated in other religions that have nothing to do with Israel or Christianity (the way Jesus and his followers teached).


Your claim that the existence of too many beliefs about hell does not mean the Scriptures are not clear is itself another interpretation. When anyone consults the Bible to learn something, they must interpret the meaning of the translated and potentially mistranslated words on the page in front of them since the original intent of the author is lost to history. Sure, in many instances, we can safely assume a plain reading of some Biblical statements is what the author intended for us. However, for many important Biblical issues, the only thing that is clear is the existence of multiple equally plausible interpretations of Scripture which can be neither proved nor disproved.

I would disagree. If a person studied the Bible in the original languages, that person could get the intent of the original writer. Since most of us do not know Hebrew or Greek, we have to rely on scholars who have a good knowledge of these languages. By comparing the many versions and examining Interlinear versions, we can eventually make a pretty good case for understanding what's going on.

One excellent place to start is the book Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, which I had discovered at Barnes and Noble. He has no ax to grind and has some fascinating conclusions to share.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 496: Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:36 am
Reply

Like this post
brianbbs67 wrote:

This is what I believe. Death comes early in the bible. "do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For the day you eat of it you will surely die." Question: Adam and Eve did not die that day, did they?

Ahhhh, but they did! Spiritually, they died. God did not lie to them in Genesis 2:17. Adam and Eve, when they ate the fruit and became wise in their own eyes and disobeyed God, became dead in their transgression, just as God said they would -- in that very day. And this became the natural state of all human beings from that time forward, as Eve was the mother of all the living.

brianbbs67 wrote:

But they died much later which could have been avoided by listening to God. In other words, they were not meant to be perishable when created but became that way due to disobedience. They were dead men walking.

Yes, physical death came much later (and could have been avoided). But spiritual death, which also could have been avoided, occurred in that very day, so Adam and Eve were "dead men walking," as you say, but doomed to physical death (which is what you mean), but ALSO having already experienced spiritual death (see above).

brianbbs67 wrote:

Nephesh is the hebrew for soul. It simply means living being, not some spirit inside a living being. Nephesh is composed of the hebrew words for dirt(from whence man came) and God's breath or spirit. When we die we return to dirt and the spirit/breath returns to God. God seems to store that consciousness till the first or second resurrection.

I think you will agree that we are all made in God's image. God is spirit, according to John 4:24. Yes, we are physical beings, but the physical part of us is a tent, or a covering, as Tam has well pointed out. There is a spiritual part of us, too, and it is dead from birth (see above). For Christians, this spiritual part of us has been quickened, or reborn; we have been given new life in Christ (John 3).

Further, there is a necessary distinguishing between 'spirit' and 'soul.' I will agree (I never disagreed) with the fact that 'soul' ('nephesh') refers to the person -- not necessarily the physical body but figuratively the inner self, the center of the person, really synonymous with the heart, as it is presented in the Bible. But again, we are all made in God's image and therefore also are spirit (though, unlike God the Father but like God the Son have physical bodies); it's just that the spirit in us is dead unless and until God gives it new life by His Spirit. We see this in 1 Corinthians 2, where Paul explains that the natural man (he who is not reborn of the Spirit and thus remains spiritually dead) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. Obviously, though we all are physically alive, there is something else in us that is either dead or alive; this is the spirit. It's not that some are "dumb," but rather that, spiritually, they are dead, and the dead can understand nothing; they know nothing (Ecclesiastes 9).

brianbbs67 wrote:

Those in the faith are resurrected first and are eternal and reign with Christ 1000 years and more thereafter.

I agree... in part. The 1000 years you refer to (the Millennium of Revelation 20) is going on now. Christ Jesus reigns today, now, not merely in the future. Yes, those in the faith are being resurrected at a steady rate and are coming to reign -- in spirit -- with Christ. When this 1000 years is over -- which is not a literal 1000 years but rather the fullness of time in which all of God's Israel, Jew and Gentile will be saved (Romans 11:25-26) -- Jesus will return, the Judgment will occur, the tares will be separated from the wheat, our faith will be sight, and Jesus will usher in the Kingdom in its fullness.

brianbbs67 wrote:

The second resurrection is of the evil, wicked and unbelievers.

The second resurrection (the first is spiritual and only occurs for some, those given new life in Christ -- John 3) is physical and is for all, believer and unbeliever alike, who have died before Christ's return. Many will be resurrected to eternal life (believers) and others will be resurrected to the second death, which is final and also eternal (but not a ceasing to exist altogether; see below).

brianbbs67 wrote:

They are alive then, at judgement , and if their name is not in the book pf life they are tossed into the lake of fire and purified. They, their consciousness exists no more. The spirit/breath returns to God. There is no eternal torment you just don't exist anymore.

They do not cease to exist. Jesus is very clear in saying that the wicked depart from Him and not annihilated but cast into "outer darkness," which is a euphemism for a place totally devoid of God's grace, and under His judgment, and having no end. It is an eternal torment to them (Matthew 28:46); their anguish is eternal and is their "worm" that does not die and their "fire" that is not quenched (Isaiah 66:24, Mark 9:44). Jesus portrays all this very graphically in His parable regarding the rich man in Luke 16, verses 23 through 28).

I have no problem with anybody believing what they want to believe. But if it doesn't line up with God's Word, then I have to disagree. In the words of Martin Luther, here I stand; I can do no other.

Grace and peace to you, brianbbs67.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 497: Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:48 pm
Reply

Like this post
onewithhim wrote:

bluegreenearth wrote:

Eloi wrote:

[Replying to post 473 by bluegreenearth]

Even if there are too many beliefs about "hell", it does not mean that the Scriptures are not clear about it. Most of the beliefs that religions teach are not originated from the Bible, even if they try to justify them with the Bible.

When a person is interested on what Bible really teaches, he goes to the Bible to learn, not to teologians. The word "hell" is not biblical, and the concept asociated with that word is not biblical. The truth about these matters is in the Bible.

The Bible uses diferent words to describe the place where dead go, and none of them is related to a place of fire where people's soul is tortured. That is a doctrine originated in other religions that have nothing to do with Israel or Christianity (the way Jesus and his followers teached).


Your claim that the existence of too many beliefs about hell does not mean the Scriptures are not clear is itself another interpretation. When anyone consults the Bible to learn something, they must interpret the meaning of the translated and potentially mistranslated words on the page in front of them since the original intent of the author is lost to history. Sure, in many instances, we can safely assume a plain reading of some Biblical statements is what the author intended for us. However, for many important Biblical issues, the only thing that is clear is the existence of multiple equally plausible interpretations of Scripture which can be neither proved nor disproved.

I would disagree. If a person studied the Bible in the original languages, that person could get the intent of the original writer. Since most of us do not know Hebrew or Greek, we have to rely on scholars who have a good knowledge of these languages. By comparing the many versions and examining Interlinear versions, we can eventually make a pretty good case for understanding what's going on.

One excellent place to start is the book Truth in Translation by Jason BeDuhn, which I had discovered at Barnes and Noble. He has no ax to grind and has some fascinating conclusions to share.


I accept that there are experts who have a better grasp of dead languages than the average person. However, the experts still lack a complete understanding of enough words and phrases to leave various interpretations open to debate. Furthermore, while there are numerous complete manuscripts of Biblical texts available for review, none of them are the originals or even the earliest versions. Textual criticism has demonstrated these embellished documents have been significantly and intentionally altered over the centuries as they were copied and "improved" upon by various scribes with theological motivations. This explains why everything the multitude of archived manuscripts have to reveal about hell (or anything else) is inconsistent and unreliable. It also explains why the version of the Bible known and loved by modern Christians today appears to be internally consistent; because the earlier inconsistent and incompatible texts were deliberately and gradually edited in later centuries into a single and more coherent narrative.


Last edited by bluegreenearth on Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:01 pm; edited 1 time in total

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 498: Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:55 pm
Reply

Like this post
Peace to you pinseeker,

Quote:
[quote="PinSeeker"]
tam wrote:

...the dead are sleeping, as Christ described Lazarus as having fallen asleep. Paul also refers to the dead as sleeping. Sleep may be a euphemism for (the first) death, but people who are sleeping do not cease to exist.

This is correct.


Yes, that should be obvious considering Christ is the One who said it.

Quote:
tam wrote:

The second death on the other hand is complete destruction (from fire). Anyone who receives the judgment of the second death DOES cease to exist.

This is incorrect; thus my disagreement.



Your disagreement does not make it incorrect, dear pinseeker. Many years back (after having studied the bible), I started searching on the internet for a religion, searching for one that agreed with me (and what I believed to be true).

Early into the process of doing this, my Lord asked me, 'Is something was true because it agrees with you?'

I immediately understood (because of His question) and answered no!

Something is true if it is in agreement with Christ! He is the Truth and the Word of God.

From that point on, I stopped worrying about the doctrines that men teach, and I simply listened to and followed my Lord.

Quote:
Those who suffer the second death are cast out and thus depart (Matthew 25, Revelation 20),


Matthew 25 is not speaking about the second death (the lake of fire). Matthew 25 is speaking about the outer darkness - outside of the Kingdom. The sheep and the goats for instance are people who are alive when Christ returns, and then separated - some being invited into the Kingdom, some being cast out, into the darkness (outside the Kingdom). This begins when my Lord returns, at the start of the "thousand years".

These people have not even experienced a first death!


The judgment in Revelation 20 on the other hand... this does not occur until the end of the "thousand years", at the second resurrection (the resurrection of the dead).


Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.


Do you see?

The people in Matthew 25 are alive when Christ returns.

The people here at Revelation 20 are dead, and then resurrected. They have to be dead because Death and Hades (hell) give up the dead in them.



Quote:
just as Adam and Eve were banished from Eden in Genesis 3:24.


Adam and Eve were banished from Eden to the earth that was now cursed (because of Adam).

Adam and Eve were not banished to Hades. But it is Hades that gives up the dead in it at the second resurrection and subsequent judgment, at the end of the thousand years.


Quote:
And they enter into a conscious, eternal state of torment under the judgment of God, the source of their anguish being that they long to be out from under God's judgment (in Abraham's bosom) forever but cannot cross the chasm (Luke 16:26).


Again, Adam and Eve were not cast into Hades.


(the rich man in Hades was seeking a drop of water to ease his torment because there was no LIFE in that place; a drop of the water of LIFE would have eased that torment)



Quote:
tam wrote:

There is nothing left of the person that could even BE resurrected.

If that were true, it would be true of all those who physically died before the return of Jesus.


How so?

No one who has died (fallen asleep) from the beginning until now has been destroyed, because none have yet been cast into the lake of fire. Ahhh... the spirit has reminded me that many believe "Hades" and the "Lake of Fire" are the same place. So perhaps you have mistaken the lake of fire to BE the same as Hades (hell) as well. But Hades is not the Lake of Fire. Hades is a PLACE that is ALSO cast into the lake of fire.

Hades is not cast into itself.




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

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 499: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:29 pm
Reply

Like this post
bluegreenearth wrote:


I accept that there are experts who have a better grasp of dead languages than the average person. However, the experts still lack a complete understanding of enough words and phrases to leave various interpretations open to debate.

These 'various interpretations' is where the danger is. Folks complete toss out what the words say and add their own 'various interpretations' to the Bible.

Are you familiar with exegesis and eisegesis?
Not sure? Here is a really great explanation.
https://www.gotquestions.org/exegesis-eisegesis.html

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 500: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:54 pm
Reply

Like this post
2timothy316 wrote:

bluegreenearth wrote:


I accept that there are experts who have a better grasp of dead languages than the average person. However, the experts still lack a complete understanding of enough words and phrases to leave various interpretations open to debate.

These 'various interpretations' is where the danger is. Folks complete toss out what the words say and add their own 'various interpretations' to the Bible.

Are you familiar with exegesis and eisegesis?


The distinction between the terms exegesis and eisegesis turns out to be a bit trivial where Biblical interpretation is involved. As you know, exegesis is supposed to describe a critical explanation or interpretation of a text. Meanwhile, eisegesis is described as the process of interpreting a text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions. When it comes to ancient texts written in dead languages where the original intent of the authors are lost to history, subjective presuppositions are brought into to every interpretation of the texts. Granted, an eisegesis approach imports subjective perspectives to a greater degree. However, when it comes to the use of an exegesis approach in interpreting the Bible, eisegesis is unavoidable because the texts themselves have already been corrupted with the subjective perspectives of numerous ancient scribes who've gradually altered the content of the original texts to match their own or their supervisor's preferred theological interpretations.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version