Is Hell Forever?

[Fez]

I am a bit more simplistic in my view of hell.

Hell is where Jesus is not. (Hell on earth is living without Jesus in you)

Heaven is where He is. (Heaven on earth is living with Him in you)

Although there is very little comparison to hell on earth and heaven on earth as I explain myself above to the ultimate revelation of what they are, which is still to come, will reveal the full truth.........

I want to be where He is.

Now and when the time comes..........

[Guest swordofpeace]

Brothers. Before I begin, I am a christian, I confess Jesus is the Christ, the prophecized messiah, and I believe the Greek Scriptures are divinely inspired, the word of God. I have to say that so you have a foundation.

I wouldn't have even commented but I know there are sincere seekers and questioners. Actually reading this thread shocked me by what I didn't see here. Has no one even analyzed the language- i.e. the word aionios.

I am studying many christian ideas and history and I am studying the Septuagint versus the Masoretic text. What does the Septuagint say of the greek word Aionios? It many times denotes things which have ended! What does this mean when exegeting things in the NEW Testament, e.g. Matthew 25:46? Forget the lexicons. Let the LXX, which Jesus quoted be our lexicon! Or?

Are you all thinking of going to heaven? Maybe that is biblical. Can you show me the verses. I am new to bible study and I would like to learn. But I do see it seems more clear that heaven will come down to us. We are not leaving the earth, it seems like, but the City of God is coming down to us, in a renewed earth. Or? I just see people talking about "going to heaven" and it seems more country clubish mentality to me as well- an escapist. if it's biblical- if you can show me the texts, I will concede.

The best comment I saw here was the man with the Yes and No answer. We have to be clear when we speak of hell. Are we speaking of Gehenna or are we speaking of Hades? Or tartarus?

I have learned a lot about modern christianity's mindset here. You may all be right- but you do not do deep analyses. They don't satisfy me. What translations are you using? I post this for those who are concerned with doctrine, like the Bereans wanting to check everything with scripture, with those with a troubled heart. You may be right but scholars you do not seem to be. Where are the linguistic analyses? Why the word "punishment" in matthew 25 is kolasis, like pruning or chastizement. In some translations this phrase is translated as age-abiding chastisement. But I really do not want to provoke anybody.

Actually for those interested, learn about what Paul taught about hell

What the bible says about 'Fire' you can do your own searching and praying.

But I have a sincere question for those who quote the Lazarus story. We all know that Jesus spoke in parables. My question is how do we know when he is doing this and when he isn't doing this? How do you know that the Lazarus story is not a parable? What do you have to say about all the symbolism?

Reading your responses have been educational. Your minds seem automatically to go down a certain track, pure 21st century american style (I am american and I love america) protestantism. I didn't respond to argue with anybody but because of Mark's sincere concern. Mark you inspired me to this, because if I were in your place...

You may be right. Maybe eternal torment in the english sense (see translations) is what will be. It did strike me as funny that a guy promoting hell here says "the wages of sin is death". It struck me that hell in our sense and death are quite different concepts, but someone commented on that. Besides if Jesus paid the full prince for our sins wouldn't he be in hell now (eternal torment and all). Not only that but I wonder that Universalism- even more extreme than Annihilationism- may never have even been declared a heresy in the church. I agree with those who say that Christians are encouraged to 'hope' in the ultimate reconciliation of all, even if they are discouraged from teaching or speaking about this openly. But in so having this hope, you can also study.

It was not my intention to give any proofs or make any arguments. I simply wanted to ask questions and give people ideas for future study. I am not trying to make a case like a lawyer- if that were so this would need be 100 pages (to call forth many witnesses). and I welcome your comments.

God bless

ps by God's judgement the world shall learn righteousness. Judgement cannot therefore always be negative-i.e. damnation as many imply! Does his mercy know an end? Does love keep a record of wrongs (Is not God love)? Are all souls not his? Can anything separate us from his love- death or life, height or depth? A lot has to do with how we interpret the word ALL in many parts of the NT, as well as what Paul meant by Us and We. A literal interpretation would to me suggest it means all, in the English sense, which imply all in the fullness of time will come (every knee shall bow every tongue confess- can they do that in hell?). I don't question God, certainly not his authority. I do question man's understanding of the texts and of God, and i question him to know him (who are you?), but not to challenge him (because his ways are so much higher than mine)

[OneLight]

I am a bit more simplistic in my view of hell.

Hell is where Jesus is not. (Hell on earth is living without Jesus in you)

Heaven is where He is. (Heaven on earth is living with Him in you)

Although there is very little comparison to hell on earth and heaven on earth as I explain myself above to the ultimate revelation of what they are, which is still to come, will reveal the full truth.........

I want to be where He is.

Now and when the time comes..........

... I love simplicity!

[Fez]

swordofpeace

I have learned a lot about modern christianity's mindset here. You may all be right- but you do not do deep analyses. They don't satisfy me. What translations are you using? I post this for those who are concerned with doctrine, like the Bereans wanting to check everything with scripture, with those with a troubled heart. You may be right but scholars you do not seem to be. Where are the linguistic analyses? Why the word "punishment" in matthew 25 is kolasis, like pruning or chastizement. In some translations this phrase is translated as age-abiding chastisement. But I really do not want to provoke anybody.

Welcome to Worthy.

The scholars will arrive shortly.....

[OneLight]

swordofpeace

I have learned a lot about modern christianity's mindset here. You may all be right- but you do not do deep analyses. They don't satisfy me. What translations are you using? I post this for those who are concerned with doctrine, like the Bereans wanting to check everything with scripture, with those with a troubled heart. You may be right but scholars you do not seem to be. Where are the linguistic analyses? Why the word "punishment" in matthew 25 is kolasis, like pruning or chastizement. In some translations this phrase is translated as age-abiding chastisement. But I really do not want to provoke anybody.

Welcome to Worthy.

The scholars will arrive shortly.....

Yes, I would not be so quick to say people here don't go deep enough ... some will curl your toes.

[Guest swordofpeace]

Love! Grace and peace to everybody!

One question that got lost when I lost part of my message. Is it possible to pay back every penny to God? I know people say that even a minor infraction against God is a sin against an infinite and holy being. Yet Jesus gives the parable of the unforgiving servant who refuses to forgive others, and is forced to pay back every penny (Matthew 18). Also Matthew 5: 26. If it is possible to pay back every penny why do you teach eternal hell? If it is not possible, why doesn't the bible make that more clear? Furthermore, Matthew 5, Gehenna is mentioned twice, and in between there is sandwiched the word "prison" instead of Gehenna, where it is ostensibly possible to get out after you have paid the last penny, ostensibly possible. It could be maybe argued that the use of the word "prison" is telling us that this is how we might interpret the word Gehenna. I am not sure. I know the fire is unquenchable but so were other unquenchable fires that burned up everything they were consuming and then later died out.

Surely Hitler may have more to pay back. But people often say that even a small sin against God is a sin against an infinite being, meriting infinite punishment, so I wonder when they later bring him up as an argument against everyone "going to heaven". If they were to be consistent, in their views, the difference betwen Hitler without Christ and Gandhi without Christ must be infinitesimal. Or? I think people who make this argument bring up Hitler because they like to take the focus off their own sins, to be able to boast, or else because of the images they invoke in people's minds. I have more questions than answers, but all of my questions tend to point to reconciliation.

[Floatingaxe]

Love! Grace and peace to everybody!

One question that got lost when I lost part of my message. Is it possible to pay back every penny to God? I know people say that even a minor infraction against God is a sin against an infinite and holy being. Yet Jesus gives the parable of the unforgiving servant who refuses to forgive others, and is forced to pay back every penny (Matthew 18). Also Matthew 5: 26. If it is possible to pay back every penny why do you teach eternal hell? If it is not possible, why doesn't the bible make that more clear? Furthermore, Matthew 5, Gehenna is mentioned twice, and in between there is sandwiched the word "prison" instead of Gehenna, where it is ostensibly possible to get out after you have paid the last penny, ostensibly possible. It could be maybe argued that the use of the word "prison" is telling us that this is how we might interpret the word Gehenna. I am not sure. I know the fire is unquenchable but so were other unquenchable fires that burned up everything they were consuming and then later died out.

Surely Hitler may have more to pay back. But people often say that even a small sin against God is a sin against an infinite being, meriting infinite punishment, so I wonder when they later bring him up as an argument against everyone "going to heaven". If they were to be consistent, in their views, the difference betwen Hitler without Christ and Gandhi without Christ must be infinitesimal. Or? I think people who make this argument bring up Hitler because they like to take the focus off their own sins, to be able to boast, or else because of the images they invoke in people's minds. I have more questions than answers, but all of my questions tend to point to reconciliation.

People won't find themselves in the Lake of Fire for their individual sins. They are condemned by their unrighteous standing before God due to them not availing themselves of salvation offered freely through Jesus' death and shed blood. Even if one person only committed one sin in his entire life, and never received Jesus, he could never make up for that one sin himself. Even if he never committed a sin, he would still be condemned, because he is unrighteous without Christ.

There is nothing in all of Scripture that teaches about paying back...but it does teach a whole lot about what Jesus had to pay.

We cannot be our own saviour.

You won't get away with even the most subtle hint of Universal Reconciliation here.

[Guest swordofpeace]

Hello, Thanks everybody. Quotes in color

I hope I have given enough ideas for people who are curious and interested to learn and study up on. I only hope that people don't worship tradition and orthodoxy for their own sake. We know what Jesus said about that. I don't like the concept or idea of theology, because how can we know God? His ways are so much higher. But we can know him through the holy spirit and the bible. Which is why I prefer the word "bible study" better than theology. Bible study.

I didn't intent to argue but I tend to get pulled in to longer discussions than at first I want. It is edifying anyway.

I would say in regard to Aionios that forget the lexicons. They are of course interesting and useful and many say that it means everlasting, and I think some scholars say that it need not mean so. But why not go to the LXX, the Septuagint, how the word is used there. Remember, all that has to happen is for a little gray area to be created- and then we can go from there and look to the pattern that scripture as a whole paints. Well in one part of the LXX, hills are described as being Aionios. Does that mean they are literally everlasting? What about job in the whale? Many more I could look at- and that is the adjective, but I think this is enough to cause us to look to the pattern of scripture for the main themes- and whether that theme is hell or whatnot.

Augustine was not a master of Greek. I think we can agree on that. He was also one of the main proponents in the church who promoted the hell doctrine. I think we can agree on that. He was also the father or the main spokesman of the argument that if Aionios Kolasis means temporary chastisement, then Aionios Zoe means only temporary life. Where is the exegetes heart when they say these things? It is as if they are happy that Aionios means eternal so that they get to spend an eternity in the heavens, even if people have to suffer forever. Myself I would rather be snuffed out than others have to suffer for my benefit (to uphold the laws of grammar on which doctrines turn). But not my will- thy will be done.

But I want to talk about how people confound the term anti-christ with the beast, with man of lawlessness, with other figures. Anti-christ is not found in revelation. Perhaps a case can be made that these referents point to the same figure. And yet most people just combine them. I would argue that maybe people are similarly confounding Aionios Zoe with 'immortality' and incorruption that Paul speaks about- glorified bodies. We know that a lady in one of the writings of Paul is being spoken of as dead though she is alive. I would say maybe- just maybe there's enough gray area, to suggest that Aionios zoe refers to a more spiritual condition than it does to actual life eternal. God correct me with your holy spirit if I am wrong. I truly want to be a sound bible student. But I always see gray areas that cause me to both go deeper and also go wider- into other scriptures. So, I don't quote chapters and versus because I am a stream of conscious person and also I follow the model of the bible writers who quote text but without always saying who and where they are quoting. They trust that their audience knew scriptures, which is a good thing.

Abraham and Lazarus- what about all of the symbolism? The dogs, the purple and linen? Abraham's bosom? The riches? Etc? Why use Abraham to signify heaven? He was just a man!There are many uncertainties- again which cause me to look to the pattern of scripture. I feel like when we analyze Aionios and raise doubts, it is like taking out a nail and it causes everything else to be able to be seen in a different light. Lazarus is an interesting passage. We have to look at the context. I understand he was talking to the pharisees and those who believed they were God's chosen and most holy and righteous and favored and blessed. I have read things but I only respond in messages what I can summon up without much digging. That drives me to remember things more clearly next time. Any case I hope you all dig with an open mind.

If the Holy Spirit wanted to limit Hell, or Eternal life, then Chronos would have been used. If there is no eternal punishment, then there is no eternal life with God. Unless you want to translate inconsistently and Ignore Greek rules.

I have never heard that. You planted a seed in me brother. A seed that will one day take root in the midst of my reading, and I will look into this argument, the idea that Chronos would be used. I will study Koine Greek, God willing.

Some people have said- why forever and ever? Why not just forever? Why does the bible use two Aionioses or Aions if one in the singular alone means eternity? How can you have a plural eternity? These same people say age of ages is not a mystery as to the meaning- for we have a model- Hebrew of Hebrews, Song of Songs, King of Kings- the meaning of these constructions are not difficult. Food for thought

There is nothing in all of Scripture that teaches about paying back...but it does teach a whole lot about what Jesus had to pay.

Agreed- he was the ransom for our sins. a perfect offering with no blemish. God is like the king who forgave his debtor everything. But when his debtor didn't forgive his fellow debtor, then what?

I just gave you two versus in the last email where it might mention paying back, in parable form. You can say there are no other versus in scripture about paying back, but what about the two things out of Jesus own mouth which says "until they pay the last penny"? Did you just block these out of your mind? Did you forget these? The human mind is actually programmed to not see what doesn't fit it's pre-supposed model of things, so I don't fault you. I wait for your interpretation on them. But the human mind can often not see what doesn't fit is a subject interesting and worthy of discussion. By the way as for almost every annihilationist or universalist, they were at one time hellist. This also applies to many partial preterists (at one time futurists). My point is that we have been of your mindset- and we are generally hesitant and even fearful of leaving. We accept only the strongest solid scriptural evidence to leave completely. Any change that happens in a day tends to be superficial and unlasting. I am still somewhat agnostic but with non-eternal hellist leanings (because of all my questions, because the very "word" hell is not biblical, which opens up the discussion of what "concept" is). Every point I make just tends to open up the discussion. I don't want anyone to change views at all, necessarily, let alone in one day. I just want people to search their bible with questions, a willingness to renew their minds like the bereans, and free and open discussions- fresh air.

I agree, last that we cannot be our own savior. Only those knees which bow and those which confess that Jesus is king will be saved. I am actually claiming to have less knowledge, not more. I am claiming to have less knowledge about when the last time this can happen is, how it works in minute detail. I trust Christ to work it out, but I am sure you would agree, only those who confess with their tongues! Christ will be king! We cannot be made righteous on our own works, but how do we know that we can't pay back the pennies that we incur for them? I mean how can people assume that the debt for a little sin is infinite? In other words there is no such thing as a misdemeanor? If we break one part of the law we are guilty of it all sure. Here is where I get confused. I am honest and open about my confusion. I know that punishments must fit crimes. I also see God as infinite. I see him as probably using his judgement to turn us to christ. The more we harden our hearts, the more he will judge and punish us correctively to bring us back. That may be partly my imagination to explain various versus, but I don't know if it is anti-scripture. That is why I generally leave it up to Christ to accomplish his purpose. Nobody can be part of a kingdom without acknowledging who the king is. I tend to think that anyone who glorifies God will be saved. Revelation talks about those who changed and gave glory, right? Any king would not punish someone who gave him glory. I tend to think that when it says that every knee shall bow, every tongue will confess, it is here that they are finally giving him his long overdue glory, just like the muslims here will someday do God willing and stop blaring out their call to prayer at 4:30 in the morning.

Edited May 17, 2012 by OneLight
could not read the green

[Guest swordofpeace]

Hello, Thanks everybody. Quotes in color

I hope I have given enough ideas for people who are curious and interested to learn and study up on. I only hope that people don't worship tradition and orthodoxy for their own sake. We know what Jesus said about that. Let's stay away from theology of man and do bible study

I didn't intent to argue but I tend to get pulled in to longer discussions than at first I want. It is edifying anyway.

I would say in regard to Aionios that forget the lexicons. They are of course interesting and useful and many say that it means everlasting, and I think some scholars say that it need not mean so. But why not go to the LXX, the Septuagint, how the word is used there. Remember, all that has to happen is for a little gray area to be created- and then we can go from there and look to the pattern that scripture as a whole paints. Well in one part of the LXX, hills are described as being Aionios. Does that mean they are literally everlasting? What about job in the whale? Many more I could look at- and that is the adjective, but I think this is enough to cause us to look to the pattern of scripture for the main themes- and whether that theme is hell or whatnot.

Augustine was not a master of Greek. I think we can agree on that. He was also one of the main proponents in the church who promoted the hell doctrine. I think we can agree on that. He was also the father or the main spokesman of the argument that if Aionios Kolasis means temporary chastisement, then Aionios Zoe means only temporary life. Where is the exegetes heart when they say these things? It is as if they are happy that Aionios means eternal so that they get to spend an eternity in the heavens, even if people have to suffer forever. Myself I would rather be snuffed out than others have to suffer for my benefit (to uphold the laws of grammar on which doctrines turn). But not my will- thy will be done.

But I want to talk about how people confound the term anti-christ with the beast, with man of lawlessness, with other figures. Anti-christ is not found in revelation. Perhaps a case can be made that these referents point to the same figure. And yet most people just combine them. I would argue that maybe people are similarly confounding Aionios Zoe with 'immortality' and incorruption that Paul speaks about- glorified bodies. We know that a lady in one of the writings of Paul is being spoken of as dead though she is alive. I would say maybe- just maybe there's enough gray area, to suggest that Aionios zoe refers to a more spiritual condition than it does to actual life eternal. God correct me with your holy spirit if I am wrong. I truly want to be a sound bible student. But I always see gray areas that cause me to both go deeper and also go wider- into other scriptures. So, I don't quote chapters and versus because I am a stream of conscious person and also I follow the model of the bible writers who quote text but without always saying who and where they are quoting. They trust that their audience knew scriptures, which is a good thing.

Abraham and Lazarus- what about all of the symbolism? The dogs, the purple and linen? Abraham's bosom? The riches? Etc? Why use Abraham to signify heaven? He was just a man!There are many uncertainties- again which cause me to look to the pattern of scripture. I feel like when we analyze Aionios and raise doubts, it is like taking out a nail and it causes everything else to be able to be seen in a different light. Lazarus is an interesting passage. We have to look at the context. I understand he was talking to the pharisees and those who believed they were God's chosen and most holy and righteous and favored and blessed. I have read things but I only respond in messages what I can summon up without much digging. That drives me to remember things more clearly next time. Any case I hope you all dig with an open mind.

If the Holy Spirit wanted to limit Hell, or Eternal life, then Chronos would have been used. If there is no eternal punishment, then there is no eternal life with God. Unless you want to translate inconsistently and Ignore Greek rules.

I have never heard that. You planted a seed in me brother. A seed that will one day take root in the midst of my reading, and I will look into this argument, the idea that Chronos would be used. I will study Koine Greek, God willing.

Some people have said- why forever and ever? Why not just forever? Why does the bible use two Aionioses or Aions if one in the singular alone means eternity? How can you have a plural eternity? These same people say age of ages is not a mystery as to the meaning- for we have a model- Hebrew of Hebrews, Song of Songs, King of Kings- the meaning of these constructions are not difficult. Food for thought

There is nothing in all of Scripture that teaches about paying back...but it does teach a whole lot about what Jesus had to pay.

Agreed- he was the ransom for our sins. a perfect offering with no blemish. God is like the king who forgave his debtor everything. But when his debtor didn't forgive his fellow debtor, then what?

I just gave you two versus in the last email where it might mention paying back, in parable form. You can say there are no other versus in scripture about paying back, but what about the two things out of Jesus own mouth which says "until they pay the last penny"? Did you just block these out of your mind? Did you forget these? The human mind is actually programmed to not see what doesn't fit it's pre-supposed model of things, so I don't fault you. I wait for your interpretation on them. But the human mind can often not see what doesn't fit is a subject interesting and worthy of discussion. By the way as for almost every annihilationist or universalist, they were at one time hellist. This also applies to many partial preterists (at one time futurists). My point is that we have been of your mindset- and we are generally hesitant and even fearful of leaving. We accept only the strongest solid scriptural evidence to leave completely. Any change that happens in a day tends to be superficial and unlasting. I am still somewhat agnostic but with non-eternal hellist leanings (because of all my questions, because the very "word" hell is not biblical, which opens up the discussion of what "concept" is). Every point I make just tends to open up the discussion. I don't want anyone to change views at all, necessarily, let alone in one day. I just want people to search their bible with questions, a willingness to renew their minds like the bereans, and free and open discussions- fresh air.

I agree, last that we cannot be our own savior. Only those knees which bow and those which confess that Jesus is king will be saved. I am actually claiming to have less knowledge, not more. I am claiming to have less knowledge about when the last time this can happen is, how it works in minute detail. I trust Christ to work it out, but I am sure you would agree, only those who confess with their tongues! Christ will be king! We cannot be made righteous on our own works, but how do we know that we can't pay back the pennies that we incur for them? I mean how can people assume that the debt for a little sin is infinite? In other words there is no such thing as a misdemeanor? If we break one part of the law we are guilty of it all sure. Here is where I get confused. I am honest and open about my confusion. I know that punishments must fit crimes. I also see God as infinite. I see him as probably using his judgement to turn us to christ. The more we harden our hearts, the more he will judge and punish us correctively to bring us back. That may be partly my imagination to explain various versus, but I don't know if it is anti-scripture. That is why I generally leave it up to Christ to accomplish his purpose. Nobody can be part of a kingdom without acknowledging who the king is. I tend to think that anyone who glorifies God will be saved. Revelation talks about those who changed and gave glory, right? Any king would not punish someone who gave him glory. I tend to think that when it says that every knee shall bow, every tongue will confess, it is here that they are finally giving him his long overdue glory, just like the muslims here will someday do God willing and stop blaring out their call to prayer at 4:30 in the morning.

In regards to "unquenchable fire" what do you have o say about this? I am curious for your view, from Bible Threatenings Explained on tentmaker.org

One of the main problems dealing with these passages is the fact that people see this fire as an eternal fire. The word "unquenchable" is the Greek word "asbestos" which has also become an English word. The English word "asbestos" means, according to Webster's Dictionary "a kind of material unaffected by fire." This is a very different meaning than the "religious" meaning of the word and different than the way the Greeks used the word in Jesus' day.

Let us see how the word "asbestos (unquenchable) was used by the Greeks. Strabo calls it the lamp in the Parthenon, and Plutarch calls the sacred fire of a temple "unquenchable," though they were extinguished long ago. Josephus, the Jewish Priest who saw the destruction of Jerusalem says that the fire on the altar of the temple at Jerusalem was "always unquenchable" abeston aei, yet he was there when the fire on the altar was forever extinguished. Eusibius, the church historian who lived in Constantine's day says that certain martyrs of Alexandria "were burned in unquenchable fire." The fire was put out within an hour! Homer speaks of "unquenchable laughter" asbestos gelos, (Iliad, I: 599)

Clearly, we are not dealing with fire here that is eternal and will never go out. We have a fire which will not be quenched until it consumes that which it is burning! It cannot be put out by an external means such as water or lack of oxygen. When it consumes everything that it was set to consume, it will go out due to lack of material that is burning. The force of the word should be on the emphasis that this divine fire will not be stopped from doing what it was sent to do. It will finish its work and will not be cut short. Whatever it was sent to burn will be completely done in. There will be no rescue

Edited May 17, 2012 by OneLight
could not read the green

[xero]

Anyone else feel like this is a strange nightmare of a fairytale where we are all the princess being held captive by the dragon and Christ is our Holy Knight clad in the shining armor of God but the princess is the dragon?