toldailytopic: Hell, what is it really like?

[Aimiel]

A heart-minded person would consider God incapable of allowing one of His creatures to be tormented. A reasoned reading of Scripture will show that hell is real, very real; and the eternal destiny of many.

 

[Arthur Brain]

A heart-minded person would consider God incapable of allowing one of His creatures to be tormented. A reasoned reading of Scripture will show that hell is real, very real; and the eternal destiny of many.

Hogwash. A reasoned reading leads to no such thing as you describe. Compassion, logic and reason are not mutually exclusive. Ironically your own doctrine actually negates the room for reason. Dogma. Such a wonderful thing. lain:

 

[Krsto]

How do you know what they all did and didn't believe? You asked and I answered. Origen and much of the early church did believe in universal salvation. They were experts in Greek. All you've achieved is redefining 'especially' into 'only'.

So you're saying Origen and much of the early church if they had translated "soter pas anthropos" into English they would have written, "Savior of all men," supplying the prep. "of" where the Greek has no prep. What I'm saying is modern translators, the overwhelming majority of which are not universal salvationists, supplied the same prep. because they know that it does not contradict with their theology. The point being, and perhaps this is my fault for not making this clear, is that universal salvation can not be proven from 1 Tim. 4:10 because it proves no such thing. You would have to get there from other scriptures if you have any, just not this one. I guess it boils down to understanding when a proof text is a proof text and when it's not.

If you are still not convinced then please tell me why so many translators in picking which one of several prep's to supply in the absence of a Greek prep. picked one that negates their theology? Can you at least see that these experts in languages did not believe "of" necessitates that Jesus saves all men while you claim it does? Or are you not able to even admit to that much?

 

[Krsto]

Originally Posted by Aimiel:

A heart-minded person would consider God incapable of allowing one of His creatures to be tormented. A reasoned reading of Scripture will show that hell is real, very real; and the eternal destiny of many.

Hogwash. A reasoned reading leads to no such thing as you describe. Compassion, logic and reason are not mutually exclusive. Ironically your own doctrine actually negates the room for reason. Dogma. Such a wonderful thing. lain:

Hold on there big guy. What he is saying is true, the real question then is: what is hell? Is it the grave or is it a place of eternal torment?

The idea that it is a very hot place of eternal torment comes from 2 places:

1) Dante's Inferno
2) A Jewish fable (Lazarus and the Rich Man) that originated in Egypt which the Jews borrowed and to which Jesus refered since he was not providing a teaching about what hell is any more than he was teaching about how to do a wedding when he gave the parable of the ten bridesmaids.

The Jews already knew what hell is. To them it was simply the grave (those who do a word study on the topic will see what I mean) and nobody in the New Covenant improved on that understanding.

Furthermore, eternal suffering is not consistant with any biblical concept of judgement other than this Jewish fable Jesus used to teach about having only this life to accept or reject the Gospel.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So you're saying Origen and much of the early church if they had translated "soter pas anthropos" into English they would have written, "Savior of all men," supplying the prep. "of" where the Greek has no prep. What I'm saying is modern translators, the overwhelming majority of which are not universal salvationists, supplied the same prep. because they know that it does not contradict with their theology. The point being, and perhaps this is my fault for not making this clear, is that universal salvation can not be proven from 1 Tim. 4:10 because it proves no such thing. You would have to get there from other scriptures if you have any, just not this one. I guess it boils down to understanding when a proof text is a proof text and when it's not.

If you are still not convinced then please tell me why so many translators in picking which one of several prep's to supply in the absence of a Greek prep. picked one that negates their theology? Can you at least see that these experts in languages did not believe "of" necessitates that Jesus saves all men while you claim it does? Or are you not able to even admit to that much?

Krsto. It's not the job of the translator's to inform any part of their own belief or theology into translating the original texts into English regardless. It's completely irrelevant as to what they may personally ascribe to. I don't particularly care what the majority of modern translators believe as it has no bearing. I would doubt that most ascribe to annihilation in that regard either but so what? You've started off by saying it was an apostle's *bad* for failure to underline that Jesus is merely the *potential* saviour of all men. Then you're equating 'of' with 'for' and in terms of 'especially' that simply doesn't add up. No self respecting newspaper would run an article reporting that a hero was the saviour of all people, especially those who didn't die. He would simply be the saviour of those he rescued, not "especially". The saviour for, yes. But not of all if all weren't saved.

As I've said before this is just one verse and my theology doesn't just hinge on one passage. God talks of reconciling and restoring all and there's a plethora of passages to support that. I can provide them if you wish.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hold on there big guy. What he is saying is true, the real question then is: what is hell? Is it the grave or is it a place of eternal torment?

The idea that it is a very hot place of eternal torment comes from 2 places:

1) Dante's Inferno
2) A Jewish fable (Lazarus and the Rich Man) that originated in Egypt which the Jews borrowed and to which Jesus refered since he was not providing a teaching about what hell is any more than he was teaching about how to do a wedding when he gave the parable of the ten bridesmaids.

The Jews already knew what hell is. To them it was simply the grave (those who do a word study on the topic will see what I mean) and nobody in the New Covenant improved on that understanding.

Furthermore, eternal suffering is not consistant with any biblical concept of judgement other than this Jewish fable Jesus used to teach about having only this life to accept or reject the Gospel.

'Big guy'? :squint:

Hell is the grave. Everyone dies in the physical. What are you actually getting at because I already accept that this is a parable and not depicting a literal fiery realm.

:idunno:

 

[Krsto]

'Big guy'? :squint:

Hell is the grave. Everyone dies in the physical. What are you actually getting at because I already accept that this is a parable and not depicting a literal fiery realm.

:idunno:

Oh, I thought you were arguing against Aimiel saying, "hell is real, very reall," and I just had a knee-jerk reaction because everbody says those of us who don't believe in eternal suffering don't believe in Hell and part of that confusion comes from us who don't communicate very well and say we don't believe in Hell when in fact we do.

I see you do believe in hell, just that only bodies go there.

 

[Krsto]

No self respecting newspaper would run an article reporting that a hero was the saviour of all people, especially those who didn't die.

They would if Savior is a title conferred on one regardless of how many he actually saved, in which case he is the savior of all and even more so those who actually got saved, especially if they had a point to make.

I'll bet you're not going to let me get the last word, are you?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Oh, I thought you were arguing against Aimiel saying, "hell is real, very reall," and I just had a knee-jerk reaction because everbody says those of us who don't believe in eternal suffering don't believe in Hell and part of that confusion comes from us who don't communicate very well and say we don't believe in Hell when in fact we do.

I see you do believe in hell, just that only bodies go there.

That's fair enough then. I argue against Aimiel's notion that hell is a place of eternal suffering, not that hell itself doesn't exist.

 

[Aimiel]

I don't believe that hell is eternal suffering. Hell is merely a playground, compared to the Lake of Fire that awaits those relegated to eternal torment therein.

 

[Arthur Brain]

They would if Savior is a title conferred on one regardless of how many he actually saved, in which case he is the savior of all and even more so those who actually got saved, especially if they had a point to make.

I'll bet you're not going to let me get the last word, are you?

Calling the guy a saviour would be absolutely fine, regardless of how many he rescued. Even if it was one out of a hundred he would still be the saviour of that person. He would not be the saviour of all and any newspaper that tried to make out that he was would be guilty of a lack of journalistic integrity. The saviour for all yes. But not of.

Regarding the scenario under question it's an 'either/or' situation as well. There's no 'especially' or any warrant for the use of the word. If you want the last word on this then go for it. I don't suppose we'll be agreeing any time soon, but I had tried to open up the dialogue away from this verse as well which you hadn't addressed.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't believe that hell is eternal suffering. Hell is merely a playground, compared to the Lake of Fire that awaits those relegated to eternal torment therein.

Funnily enough the same place that death and hades itself is cast into. Metaphor much? And if you wanted to make such an important distinction you should have done so earlier. You know fine well that people often refer to hell aka the OP in these terms and you're no exception.

 

[Aimiel]

That may well just be one of if not the most cliché and cryptic answers I've ever seen on a web forum (or BBS for that matter, before Al Gore invented the internet).

 

[Krsto]

Calling the guy a saviour would be absolutely fine, regardless of how many he rescued. Even if it was one out of a hundred he would still be the saviour of that person. He would not be the saviour of all and any newspaper that tried to make out that he was would be guilty of a lack of journalistic integrity. The saviour for all yes. But not of.

Regarding the scenario under question it's an 'either/or' situation as well. There's no 'especially' or any warrant for the use of the word. If you want the last word on this then go for it. I don't suppose we'll be agreeing any time soon, but I had tried to open up the dialogue away from this verse as well which you hadn't addressed.

Thanks for offering the last word but you have worn me out so it's yours. :up:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Thanks for offering the last word but you have worn me out so it's yours. :up:

Well I'm sorry that's how you feel. I was hoping to expand on other areas as to why you support annihilation in general but ok. Disappointing though...

:sigh:

 

[Arthur Brain]

That may well just be one of if not the most cliché and cryptic answers I've ever seen on a web forum (or BBS for that matter, before Al Gore invented the internet).

So no actual response and just deflecting ad hom with no substance. Ok Aimiel. The lake of fire is a literal fiery lake with no metaphor contained whatsoever. There's nothing symbolic about death and hades being cast into it at all. It's all thoroughly literal as is the whole of Revelation. Happy?

:thumb:



lain:

 

[Krsto]

I don't believe that hell is eternal suffering. Hell is merely a playground, compared to the Lake of Fire that awaits those relegated to eternal torment therein.

Picture an incinerator, and you will get an idea of what the Lake of Fire is all about. Incinerators are for consuming objects. The fire in them may be "eternal" but the objects in them only burn long enough to be consumed. It's not much different than Gehenna which was the name for the garbage dump outside Jerusalem which burned continually much like the city dump I used to as a kid go play at which always had fires going before the EPA shut it down.

The only mention of eternal suffering in Revelation is 14:11 for those who take the mark of the beast and worship him and for the Devil, the Beast, and the False Prophet toward the end of the book. In both cases we are in a highly symbolic book which may actually be talking about their spiritual condition while still on earth (notice those who take the mark are worshipping the beast in the present tense), but who knows? Revelation is difficult to deal with and hardly the first place I would go to nail down my doctrine on much of anything other than eschatology and even that's a challenge.

Did you read my earlier post which goes over some of the language we are dealing with including "eternal destruction"?

You can find it here: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2330088&postcount=36

Sorry, don't know how to do the one word link thing.

 

[Krsto]

I don't believe that hell is eternal suffering. Hell is merely a playground, compared to the Lake of Fire that awaits those relegated to eternal torment therein.

Eloyhim smacked this one down on page 2 or 3 so I'll quote him:

You are proof-texting to wrest the scriptures while ignoring all the major and minor prophets who describe annihilation. Sure, ignore that it's blatant symbolism you're quoting. You must imagine a literal beast, too. And you apparently don't understand that "eternal" fire does not mean it burns forever.

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Is Sodom still burning today? No. Is she still smoking? No. Yet she suffered the vengeance of eternal fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimiel
... but, since God doesn't lie, your imagined 'poof' or disappearing act must be imagined, since it isn't Scriptural.

Imagined? No. God's word confirms everything I've posted.

What was Peter imagining here?

2 Peter 3:10-13

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

 

[Krsto]

Well I'm sorry that's how you feel. I was hoping to expand on other areas as to why you support annihilation in general but ok. Disappointing though...

:sigh:

I'm just kidding. You take me too seriously. I am done with THAT verse, however. That poor horse deserves to rest in peace. Time to find another horse.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm just kidding. You take me too seriously. I am done with THAT verse, however. That poor horse deserves to rest in peace. Time to find another horse.

Well sometimes it's hard to define where people are coming from so if you're up for further debate then :thumb: Regardless of the energy of the aforementioned 'horse' what is it that leads you to believe that annihilation is taught overall? Does it solely apply to unbelievers? Explain.