Help with Hell

[Margrove]

Hello.

Not sure this is the right forum.

Hell in the Old Testament was the Hebrew Gê-hinnōm or Sheʾōl. The first place actually exists and is a desolate valley close to Jerusalem where nothing grows. Here there is a connection with fire, because seems like the place was used to incinerate children to Moloch. The second Hebrew denomination (Sheol) simply means pit, grave. To me both convey the meaning of desolation, abandonment, nothingness, void, and the punishment for the malignant souls derives from that "void".

Also, a rabi mentioned during an interview that the stay of the malignant soul at the Hebrew Hell can last up to one year only. This limited time stay seems to be like the concept of Purgatory in the Christian faith, where the souls stay for a limited time until they repent or not and are shuttled either to Heaven or Hell according to each case.

Other sources say that the Christian Hell was adpoted from the Greek tradition. However, the Roman Hell (Hades) is a cold, dark labyrinth guarded by Cerberus. The Roman Hell is not fiery, but cold. Celtic Hell is usually at the bottom of water bodies as it could be the case at La Thène where archaeologists interpret the offerings found at the bottom of the Neuchâtel lake as offerings to the spirits that live in the otherworld. Therefore, the fire from Hell did not came from Hebrew, Roman, Greek or Celtic tradition.

In the New Testament, we see very few mentions to the "fire of Hell" in Matthew 5:22, 18:9; James 3:6. In the Revelation, if I am not mistaken, it mentions that the Antichrist will be thrown in the hell of fire and perish.

Form where it came the fiery Hell mentioned in the Bible? Is it native to the Christian religion or is it imported from another religion?

[kjw47]

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #36]
The bible promises a resurrection( Rev 20:13) after Armageddon and the wicked are removed. All who have died stay dead until the resurrection. Only the little flock will join Jesus in heaven prior to the resurrection event. Blind guides tell all they go to heaven at death.

Every human who ever died will be resurrected. Deceased believers will be resurrected at the Second Coming of Christ.

The "wicked" are not being resurrected to be "removed." They will be given the opportunity to become believers and enter the everlasting Kingdom of God after being resurrected as humans a thousand years after the Second Coming.

Jesus is returning to rule the earth for ever and ever with those who believe in Him.

Those who are killed during Armageddon will not get resurrected. Yes the resurrected will get an opportunity to learn and apply Gods will, with no satan influences around for that 1000 years. But then he is loosed for a little while to test their faith, those who are worthy get their names written in Gods book of life, those who fall get destroyed forever.
Jesus will return to earth here( Rev 19:11) to destroy all of the wicked off of Gods earth. Jesus compared these last days to Noahs day( Luke 17:26) 99.9% mislead to destruction in Noahs day) 99% minimum today. 1 Cor 6:9-11,, Gal 5:19-21, along with all the false god worship= 99% on earth. Very sad.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #25]

Ridiculous.

Opinion noted. Lets us examine the idea to see if it is the case it is simply something deserving or inviting derision or mockery; something absurd..

The true Christian congregation would have been unhindered and the world would be basking in the truth. As it happened, the false church has been like weeds (tares) that almost choked the true church out. (Matt.13:37-39)

This appears to contradict your former statement:

It was a CRAZY time in history. The Christian Church basically was just trying to not get snuffed out and rather than sticking to what Jesus taught, it started making compromises in what it taught.

What makes you think that this "Christian Church" even existed?

Wouldn't Jesus and his early disciples be considered the true Christian Church? What came later (Acts 20:29,30) was not the Christian Church but a false representation of it. It called itself the Roman Catholic Church.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #42]

Wouldn't Jesus and his early disciples be considered the true Christian Church?

By whom?
Continuing with the theme I have been writing about in this thread:
Clearly there is no indication from Jesus that his followers were to be called "Christians" (refer Matt 24:11) and certainly there is no passage to be found where Jesus called his followers "Christians"(refer John 8:31).

Christianity is a Roman invention. Evidential History is clear on that.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #42]

Wouldn't Jesus and his early disciples be considered the true Christian Church?

By whom?
Continuing with the theme I have been writing about in this thread:
Clearly there is no indication from Jesus that his followers were to be called "Christians" (refer Matt 24:11) and certainly there is no passage to be found where Jesus called his followers "Christians"(refer John 8:31).

Christianity is a Roman invention. Evidential History is clear on that.

Maybe Jesus didn't call his followers Christians, but that is what they were. To call them Christians merely means that they followed Christ. Jesus' followers were called Christians, not by the apostate Roman church, but by "divine providence" in Antioch where Paul and Barnabas had joined the congregation there. (Acts 11:26)

"The disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (26b)

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #44]

Maybe Jesus didn't call his followers Christians, but that is what they were.

There is no "maybe" about it - clearly there is no record that I am aware of, of Jesus ever calling his followers Christians. If you have scripture to verify that he did, please present it.
Simply claiming that "that's what they were" ignores the historical evidence of the extreme Roman influence re the development of Christianity as a Roman invention.

To call them Christians merely means that they followed Christ.

On the contrary. It merely means that the claimed to follow Christ. Big difference. (re Matt 24:11)

Jesus' followers were called Christians, not by the apostate Roman church, but by "divine providence" in Antioch where Paul and Barnabas had joined the congregation there.

You do realize that Paul was a lawful murderer working for Rome as a Roman Citizen? Have you considered the plausibility that the story was invented in order for Rome to get a foothold into the pesky new religion they saw as a potential threat to their own power over the minds of those they ruled, and this was a cost-effective way in which to infiltrate and redirect? (re Matt 24:11)

Do you have any argument which would put that idea to rest?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #44]

Maybe Jesus didn't call his followers Christians, but that is what they were.

There is no "maybe" about it - clearly there is no record that I am aware of, of Jesus ever calling his followers Christians. If you have scripture to verify that he did, please present it.
Simply claiming that "that's what they were" ignores the historical evidence of the extreme Roman influence re the development of Christianity as a Roman invention.

To call them Christians merely means that they followed Christ.

On the contrary. It merely means that the claimed to follow Christ. Big difference. (re Matt 24:11)

Jesus' followers were called Christians, not by the apostate Roman church, but by "divine providence" in Antioch where Paul and Barnabas had joined the congregation there.

You do realize that Paul was a lawful murderer working for Rome as a Roman Citizen? Have you considered the plausibility that the story was invented in order for Rome to get a foothold into the pesky new religion they saw as a potential threat to their own power over the minds of those they ruled, and this was a cost-effective way in which to infiltrate and redirect? (re Matt 24:11)

Do you have any argument which would put that idea to rest?

No, and you don't have an argument either. Paul was not "working for Rome," and I doubt you can show that to be true. The Roman Church did cause mayhem to Christianity, but only gradually, really getting its tentacles into Christ's religion by 325 A.D.

[William]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #46]

No, and you don't have an argument either. Paul was not "working for Rome," and I doubt you can show that to be true.

It is enough to show it is possible. 2 Corinthians 11:14

[onewithhim]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #46]

No, and you don't have an argument either. Paul was not "working for Rome," and I doubt you can show that to be true.

It is enough to show it is possible. 2 Corinthians 11:14

Possible?? That's biting off a lot for people to chew.