GEHENNA, a place of fiery torture?

[onewithhim]

Jesus warned his disciples against suffering the judgment of Gehenna. Was he referring to a burning hell of everlasting torture? (Matthew 5:22)

The Greek word Ge'en na corresponds to the Hebrew geh veneh-Hin nom,---Valley of the sons of Hinnom. It became a garbage dump for Jerusalem, serving as an incinerator where fires were kept burning to dispose of rubbish, and anything thrown into this dump would be completely destroyed, turned into ashes.

Many Bible translators haven rendered Ge' en na as "hell." (Matthew 5:22, KJV) Why is this? (Since Gehenna and hell are two different things.) Because they associated the pagan-inspired notion of an afterlife of fiery judgment for the wicked with the physical fire in the valley outside Jerusalem. Jesus, though, did not associate Gehenna with torture. He knew that the thought of burning people alive is repugnant to Jehovah. He referred to the use made of Gehenna in the days of the prophet Jeremiah. God said: "They have built the high places of Topheth which is in the valley of the sons of Hinnom in order to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart." Burning people was not something that God can countenance, and He can't to this day. A good point is that the idea of torture for the dead conflicts with God's loving personality as well as with the Bible's clear teaching that "the dead are conscious of nothing." (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10)

Jesus used the term "Gehenna" to symbolize the utter destruction that would come from God's judgment on the wicked. So...."Gehenna" means, similarly, the lake of fire in Revelation. Both symbolize eternal destruction from which there is no resurrection. (Luke 12:4,5; Revelation 20:14,15.

Doesn't this sound more merciful than people being tortured in a never-ending fire? The fire symbolizes complete annihilation, just like what the fires in Gehenna did to trash and bodies of criminals.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Do you guys believe that literal fire (of some sort) comes down from heaven and devours 'them'? (From Revelation 20, after Satan misleads 'gog and magog'.)

If so, what is the issue with there being a "lake of fire" that can do the same? The lake of fire does indeed means the second death - that utter destruction would leave no possibility of a resurrection. There would be nothing left TO resurrect.


Peace again.

If the fire that came down from heaven and katesthió - literally ate them up, or consumed them, are they destroyed by the fire?
If they are destroyed by the fire that came from heaven, would that not mean that the lake of fire is not another fire designed to torment them, but rather represents their complete destruction, as in their second (permanent) death?

Yes, of course. I think everyone (in this most recent conversation) understands that the lake of fire completely destroys, rather than torments.

What I am asking is if you (and/or others) believe that the fire that came down from heaven is literal.

Peace again.

[myth-one.com]

I think everyone (in this most recent conversation) understands that the lake of fire completely destroys, rather than torments.

Suppose God decided to visit the lake of fire.

Would He be completely destroyed?

[tam]

Peace to you,

I think everyone (in this most recent conversation) understands that the lake of fire completely destroys, rather than torments.

Suppose God decided to visit the lake of fire.

Would He be completely destroyed?

He would not even be harmed. Remember that God is a consuming fire. How could any energy or power be greater than His own dynamic energy/power?


Peace again.

[myth-one.com]

Peace to you,

I think everyone (in this most recent conversation) understands that the lake of fire completely destroys, rather than torments.

Suppose God decided to visit the lake of fire.

Would He be completely destroyed?

He would not even be harmed. Remember that God is a consuming fire. How could any energy or power be greater than His own dynamic energy/power?


Peace again.

He would not even be harmed because God is an immortal Spirit:

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24

The devil is also an immortal spiritual bodied being.

When the devil is cast into the lake of fire, he will not be hurt or destroyed by the fire either. His torment will be knowing he failed, being defeated, seeing lowly humans being upgraded to take his place, never being given another opportunity, separation from the Kingdom of God, etc. He has rebelled, been defeated, and lost his freedom and authority for eternity by being imprisoned in the lake of fire eternally.

And the devil cannot end his torment by dying, as he was created immortal. Just as the immortal spiritual God, death does not apply to the devil.

Being imprisoned in the lake of fire will cause him torment forever and ever!

[John17_3]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Do you guys believe that literal fire (of some sort) comes down from heaven and devours 'them'? (From Revelation 20, after Satan misleads 'gog and magog'.)

If so, what is the issue with there being a "lake of fire" that can do the same? The lake of fire does indeed means the second death - that utter destruction would leave no possibility of a resurrection. There would be nothing left TO resurrect.


Peace again.

If the fire that came down from heaven and katesthió - literally ate them up, or consumed them, are they destroyed by the fire?
If they are destroyed by the fire that came from heaven, would that not mean that the lake of fire is not another fire designed to torment them, but rather represents their complete destruction, as in their second (permanent) death?

Yes, of course. I think everyone (in this most recent conversation) understands that the lake of fire completely destroys, rather than torments.

I think you would be surprised at how many do not agree with that.

What I am asking is if you (and/or others) believe that the fire that came down from heaven is literal.

Peace again.

Revelation 20:9 - They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

If the fire is literal, it harms the breath of the earth - anything around the rebels, and I do not see that fitting well with scripture, since the 1,000 year reign of Christ restores paradise on earth, and God to ruin the earth with fire after restoring it, does not seem all together wise.
It is God's execution of all the opposes. So that does not require literal fire. Simply destruction.

For the fire to be literal, something similar to what took place at Numbers 16:20-35, would have to take place, where the rebels are all separated and isolated from the righteous.

The next verse tells us 'Then the Devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.'
The lake of fire signifies the second death. It is identified to John not to be a literal fire.
We can believe Jesus angel, as oppose to anyone else.

[John17_3]

Peace to you,

I think everyone (in this most recent conversation) understands that the lake of fire completely destroys, rather than torments.

Suppose God decided to visit the lake of fire.

Would He be completely destroyed?

He would not even be harmed. Remember that God is a consuming fire. How could any energy or power be greater than His own dynamic energy/power?


Peace again.

The Lake of Fire is symbolic. It is a representation. Not a tangible place.
It is similar to the beast with seven head and ten horns. Jesus cannot touch the beast's heads and horns, because they are symbolic representations.
The Lake of Fire is a symbolic representation. It represents the second death.

Do you notice that this fact is ignored and never addressed by persons who insist the lake of fire is a literal fire?
Why do you think that is?
Jesus' angel told us the truth, throughout the book of Revelation.

[John17_3]

Peace to you,

I think everyone (in this most recent conversation) understands that the lake of fire completely destroys, rather than torments.

Suppose God decided to visit the lake of fire.

Would He be completely destroyed?

He would not even be harmed. Remember that God is a consuming fire. How could any energy or power be greater than His own dynamic energy/power?


Peace again.

He would not even be harmed because God is an immortal Spirit:

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. John 4:24

The devil is also an immortal spiritual bodied being.

When the devil is cast into the lake of fire, he will not be hurt or destroyed by the fire either. His torment will be knowing he failed, being defeated, seeing lowly humans being upgraded to take his place, never being given another opportunity, separation from the Kingdom of God, etc. He has rebelled, been defeated, and lost his freedom and authority for eternity by being imprisoned in the lake of fire eternally.

And the devil cannot end his torment by dying, as he was created immortal. Just as the immortal spiritual God, death does not apply to the devil.

Being imprisoned in the lake of fire will cause him torment forever and ever!

If the Devil, or any angel, was created immortal, the Bible did not reveal that to us.
Rather, it reveals to us at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16, that God alone is immortal.
We know the Bible is true, don't we. No one beside God was immortal.

That changed, when Jesus, upon being resurrected, was the first to be given immortality, from God. After which, those who receive their heavenly reward, are also given immortality. Romans 6:9; 1 Corinthians 15:53-55

[onewithhim]

I think everyone (in this most recent conversation) understands that the lake of fire completely destroys, rather than torments.

Suppose God decided to visit the lake of fire.

Would He be completely destroyed?

Well that is what the lake of fire means. Total destruction. So God wouldn't visit it.

[myth-one.com]

If the Devil, or any angel, was created immortal, the Bible did not reveal that to us.

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (Genesis 3:22)

Adam & Eve were separated from the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and gaining immortality like God and the other angels present at the time.

Rather, it reveals to us at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16, that God alone is immortal.

No, that verse is regarding Jesus.

Jesus is the only human to qualify as an heir to everlasting life under the Old Testament covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Under that covenant, one had to be free of sin to inherit everlasting life, and Jesus was the only one to accomplish that feat. Therefore, Jesus alone had immortality as an inheritance under covenant!

We know the Bible is true, don't we.

We know the scriptures are true.

No one beside God was immortal.

That's nowhere in the scriptures nor any Bibles to my knowledge.

It's nonsense. Man is born as a mortal being. Both testaments of the Bible then describe what one must do to attain immortality under that particular testament!

But to what end if there is no immortal except for God?

[John17_3]

If the Devil, or any angel, was created immortal, the Bible did not reveal that to us.

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (Genesis 3:22)

Adam & Eve were separated from the Garden of Eden to prevent them from eating of the Tree of Life and gaining immortality like God and the other angels present at the time.

I suppose it depends on how one defines immortality.
I understand a person having immortality as one who cannot die. How do you define it?
While God has life within himself, and is not dependent on anything to sustain him, god is immortal, and cannot die.
On the other hand, God granting someone everlasting life, does not mean that one becomes immortal. They do not have life within themselves.
John 5:26 - For as the Father has life in Himself, so also He gave to the Son to have life in Himself.

Rather, it reveals to us at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16, that God alone is immortal.

No, that verse is regarding Jesus.

Jesus is the only human to qualify as an heir to everlasting life under the Old Testament covenant between God and the nation of Israel. Under that covenant, one had to be free of sin to inherit everlasting life, and Jesus was the only one to accomplish that feat. Therefore, Jesus alone had immortality as an inheritance under covenant!

The context does suggest this refers to Jesus, but I don't see where you got "as an inheritance under covenant".
However, we agree that Jesus is th first heir, and there are heirs to the promise, who join him. These also will have immortality.
These are the only ones spoken of as having immortality. 1 Corinthians 15:51-55

We know the Bible is true, don't we.

We know the scriptures are true.

No one beside God was immortal.

That's nowhere in the scriptures nor any Bibles to my knowledge.

I am surprised to hear you say that.
Are you saying that Adam could have become immortal, while God is not immortal?
Do these scriptures not say that God is immortal?
Deuteronomy 18:16 - Are you not from eternity, LORD my God? My Holy One, you will not die.
Psalm 90:2 - ...from everlasting to everlasting You are God.

Surely, if you assume that Adam would have become immortal by eating a fruit, you accept that the scriptures tell us God is immortal?

It's nonsense. Man is born as a mortal being. Both testaments of the Bible then describe what one must do to attain immortality under that particular testament!

Having the gift of everlasting life, is not the same as being granted immortality.
Everlasting life is conditional, as the scriptures show, that disobedience disqualifies one from that gift.

Adam was disqualified from God's gift of everlasting life. He was not granted it, because of disobedience.
Those granted everlasting life, can die.
One thousand years under Christ rein, will not save one from death, if they rebel against God. Isaiah 65:20; Revelation 20:9

But to what end if there is no immortal except for God?

I don't understand the question.
Can you please rephrase?