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?

[JehovahsWitness]

.......To be clear, the corpses in Mark and Isaiah are dead, but they burn and are infested by maggots forever.

If your point is that corps are consumed with live (writhing) magots and this is NOT being presented as support that after death something of the person survives to subsequently suffer pain, then thank you for stating the obvious.




JW



RELATED POSTS

Do the maggots cause pain for the damned (MARK 9:48)?
viewtopic.php?p=1027461#p1027461

[JehovahsWitness]

Luke's tells many parables that are fictional, yet contain elements that reflect reality even when given alternate, allegorical meanings. ...

I agree, so what is your claim about the parabel of the rich man and Lazarus?





JW



RELATED POSTS

Luke 16:22-30 : Does the parable of The Rich man and Lazarus teach us about life beyond the grave?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 77#p971077

[Difflugia]

If your point is that corps are consumed with live (writhing) magots and this is NOT being presented as support that after death something of the person survives to subsequently suffer pain, then thank you for stating the obvious.

Yes. That is obvious. You have apparently missed the other "obvious" point, though: while Mark doesn't believe in eternal torture, Luke does.

I agree, so what is your claim about the parabel of the rich man and Lazarus?

That the parable describes a fictional wicked man being consciously tormented after death, as Luke believed happened to real wicked people in real Hades.

[PinSeeker]

• LUKE 12:5:[/color][/b]

  But I will warn you whom you shall fear: fear him, who after he has killed has power to cast into hell. Yea, I say to you, fear him!

Biblically, when someone is killed nothing of them is left living. What remains is a lifeless body. Luke reports Jesus warning after having been killed one risks being thrown into Gehenna.

Gehenna here being used symbol of eternal non-existence, not of torture of the living.

A lot of issues here in this little statement:

Difflugia is right, at least in the latter part of what he says here. If one asserts that He uses Gehenna as a “symbol of eternal non-existence, then He is making a contradictory statement — in more ways than one. Actually. Let’s look at both verses 4 and 5 together:

• ”I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you Whom to fear: fear Him Who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear Him!” - Luke 12:4-5

Firstly, Jesus clearly insinuates that one can experience... something... even after they have been killed by earthly means; they just can’t experience anything more from their earthly killers.

Secondly, God has authority to send the one killed... somewhere... to experience... again, something... after they have been killed by their earthly killers.

Thirdly, there is no “torture” in view here, eternal or otherwise. Indeed, there is nothing even insinuating the infliction of torture by God — physical or otherwise — anywhere in the Bible. So yes, Gehenna is not being used to symbolize “torture of the living,” as that in itself is an utterly ridiculous idea. But it most assuredly does symbolize a place of existence to which one can be consigned by God after his/her earthly demise, and God is to be feared, says Jesus, because of His — and actually His own — authority to do so.

Even so, thanks to Difflugia for pointing out what Jesus says here in Luke 12. However... you knew there was a “however” coming, right? . Yeah. However:

Matthew does not in any way concerning any subject present a “different Jesus” than Luke. All four gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) present complementary accounts of Jesus’s ministry, and, understood together to any modicum of real discernment, present a complete view of Christ and Who He was/is, what He did, what He said/meant, and why He came, He did what He did, and said what He said.

Grace and peace to all.

[myth-one.com]

• ”I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you Whom to fear: fear Him Who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear Him!” - Luke 12:4-5

Firstly, Jesus clearly insinuates that one can experience... something... even after they have been killed by earthly means; they just can’t experience anything more from their earthly killers.

Secondly, God has authority to send the one killed... somewhere... to experience... again, something... after they have been killed by their earthly killers.

There is no mystery "something" here.

Man should not fear those who can cause only their first physical death.

Man should fear God, who can cause their everlasting second death in hellfire.

[JehovahsWitness]

That the parable describes a fictional wicked man being consciously tormented after death, as Luke believed happened to real wicked people in real Hades.

Let's leave what Luke believed for our mindreading friends and just deal with what he wrote.

If I understand your point correctly, you are claiming that in the parable being tormented after death is a metaphor for ... being tormented after death. However, since the elements in a parables generally speaking, usually represent something different*, on what do you base this assumption?

* Parables about sheep are not usually about sheep, parables about losing coins are not usually about losing coins, so why is a parable about losing your life about losing your life?

The point about parables is they usually teach moral issues rather than shed light on literal "physical" realities. Their point lies in attitude and principles, they are about love, jealous, goodness, evil. So (for example) the parable about the hired workers may be about jealousy, hard work, mercy and rewards but NOT about what happens To people after a day's work.

• In the story, "what happens after work" is not a metaphor for ... "what happens after work"

Arguably then...

• in Luke "what happens after death" may well NOT be a metaphor for ... "what happens after death"

Many have taken a very simplistic approach to Jesus parable in Luke 16, but putting aside preconcieved ideas and accepting the above basic premise of all parables, allows for a deeper appraisal of context and content.

JW

[PinSeeker]

Let's leave what Luke believed for our mindreading friends and just deal with what he wrote.

Yes, by all means, let us do just that. Despite what some seem to "think," nobody said anything insinuating any "mystery." The point is that it is clear from the text that people still exist after death. My goodness.

Many have taken a every simplistic approach to Jesus parable in Luke 16, but putting aside preconcieved ideas and accepting the above basic premise of all parables, allows for a deeper appraisal of context and content.

Many have (unwittingly, possibly) allowed their predispositions to color the premises to and images contained in of one or more of Jesus's parables, and it has therefore led them to terribly flawed and incorrect conclusions about various things, and perhaps a great many things. Some, not so much, but their predispositions still lead them astray, many times in abject denial of what is clearly written.

Grace and peace to all.

[Difflugia]

Let's leave what Luke believed for our mindreading friends and just deal with what he wrote.

Absolutely.

If I understand your point correctly, you are claiming that in the parable being tormented after death is a metaphor for ... being tormented after death.

No. I'm not talking about the metaphorical meaning. I'm saying that Luke's Jesus is describing Hades as a place of torment whether or not it has a secondary, metaphorical meaning.

However, since the elements in a parables generally speaking, usually represent something different*, on what do you base this assumption?

* Parables about sheep are not usually about sheep, parables about losing coins are not usually about losing coins, so why is a parable about losing your life about losing your life?

This comparison makes my point. Parables about sheep, though having some deeper meaning, still describe sheep living and behaving exactly as real sheep do. Whatever deeper meaning may lie in the parable about Hades, we have no reason to think that the description of Hades is any different than how he would describe the real Hades.

Perhaps you'd point out a second parable where any of the fictional subjects behave differently than their real counterparts? The sheep in Luke 15 are metaphorically a mixed flock of righteous and sinful humans. The literal sheep aren't described as talking sheep or flying sheep, but as ordinary sheep. Why, of all the parables, are we supposed to believe that the one describing Hades is absolutely unique in describing things other than they are? The fictional vineyards, evil tenants, servants, talents of silver, women, fathers, prodigal sons, fatted calves, and sheep all behave exactly as such things do in reality. Why, then, would you ask us to believe that Hades the only thing that behaves differently in the universe of parables than it does in reality?

Many have taken a very simplistic approach to Jesus parable in Luke 16, but putting aside preconcieved ideas and accepting the above basic premise of all parables, allows for a deeper appraisal of context and content.

Yes. Let's put aside our preconceived notions about Hades and Gehenna and read what Luke has to say on the matter.

[JehovahsWitness]

The sheep in Luke 15 are metaphorically a mixed flock of righteous and sinful humans.

So in your example, when Jesus said the word "sheep" he meant "humans". Jesus was not giving a lesson in animal husbandry but telling a story to teach (not about literal sheep) but about people . He was saying one word "sheep" but it was "code" for "people". Why? That there was something about literal real sheep that he was applying to the object of his illustration(the people).

The million dollar question then is: what about literal real death/hades that was Jesus applying to the object in his illustration?

In short, what was death "code" for? If we remove the preconcieved idea that death/hades is literally a place of agony (which was never originally part of the Hebrew tradition) we can examine the text without bias, as Jesus' audience would have done, and not miss the indicators Luke provides in his narrative as to meaning.



JW



RELATED POSTS

Does the parable of the riche man and Lazarus contain a literal or "metaphoric death" ?
viewtopic.php?p=1027531#p1027531

What aspect of "death" and "hades" was Jesus drawing on in his parable of The Rich man and Lazarus? [this post]
viewtopic.php?p=1027548#p1027548

Luke 16:22-30 : Does the parable of The Rich man and Lazarus teach us about life beyond the grave?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 77#p971077

[Checkpoint]

Let's leave what Luke believed for our mindreading friends and just deal with what he wrote.

Yes, by all means, let us do just that. Despite what some seem to "think," nobody said anything insinuating any "mystery." The point is that it is clear from the text that people still exist after death. My goodness.

Many have taken a every simplistic approach to Jesus parable in Luke 16, but putting aside preconcieved ideas and accepting the above basic premise of all parables, allows for a deeper appraisal of context and content.

Many have (unwittingly, possibly) allowed their predispositions to color the premises to and images contained in of one or more of Jesus's parables, and it has therefore led them to terribly flawed and incorrect conclusions about various things, and perhaps a great many things. Some, not so much, but their predispositions still lead them astray, many times in abject denial of what is clearly written.

Grace and peace to all.

The subject of this thread is "hell", which is a word that came into English, from a language other than Hebrew or Greek.

Words translated into "hell", such as "Gehenna" and "Hades", have their own particular meaning and application.

The subject of a future "hell", and of God's coming Judgment of all, has been controversial for many centuries, concerning the fate 0f those then rejected.

This subforum has had several threads on this matter, annd it is evident that we have at least two firmly held opinions among posters.


It has also become evident how we evaluate the opinion we do not agree with, and how we tend to view the poster we oppose, and what and how they think.

Here are some current examples:

"our mindreading friends", "some seem to think", "insinuating", "it is clear from the text", "Many have taken a very simplistic approach", "preconceived ideas".

"Many have (unwittingly, possibly) allowed their predispositions to color the premises to...., and it has therefore led them to terribly flawed and incorrect conclusions their predispositions still lead them astray, many times in abject denial of what is clearly written."

What we say of others is echoed by those same posters, toward us and our thoughts, however much or little they express them.

Do we really have to, or need to, keep on in this way?

Micah 6:8

He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Grace and peace to each one who reads and/or posts on this sub-forum.