Is there a Hell?

[PreciousRubi]

If "HELL" is thrown into the lake of fire....where then is that 'eternal place of torment' for all the wicked unbelievers?

Revelation 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

It is in the lake of fire. Once again, there is nothing to suggest annihilation. The second death refers to the final and eternal spiritual condtion of those who rejected Christ.

Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

How do you interpret this passage in Jude?

Sodom and Gomorrah which were annihilated by fire....are here given as an example of punishement by eternal fire.

[methinkshe]

If "HELL" is thrown into the lake of fire....where then is that 'eternal place of torment' for all the wicked unbelievers?

Revelation 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

It is in the lake of fire. Once again, there is nothing to suggest annihilation. The second death refers to the final and eternal spiritual condtion of those who rejected Christ.

I agree, and that is the teaching that I have always embraced.

Daniel 12:2 says:

And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

If everlasting life is to mean living for ever then must it not also be true that everlasting contempt means forever to be shamed?

I do not see much room for annhilation here.

[Guest shiloh357]

If "HELL" is thrown into the lake of fire....where then is that 'eternal place of torment' for all the wicked unbelievers?

Revelation 20:14

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

It is in the lake of fire. Once again, there is nothing to suggest annihilation. The second death refers to the final and eternal spiritual condtion of those who rejected Christ.

Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

How do you interpret this passage in Jude?

Sodom and Gomorrah which were annihilated by fire....are here given as an example of punishement by eternal fire.

That is absolutely true. The torment of sinners for eternity cannot be supported by this verse, but that is because Jude does not have that object in view. He is not talking about the eternal spiritual condition of the inhabitants of Sodom and Ghomorrah.

However, neither does that verse argue against or preclude eternal torment. It simply does not address that particular issue either way.

Jude's point is that the false teachers who had infiltrated the church would undergo a judgment so complete and finally permament and he uses sodom and ghomorrah to illustrate the completeness of that judgment as welll as its permanency.

[Guest shiloh357]

Hades" translates literally as a hole in the ground (the grave). In this sense then, I see no difficulty with your opinion of "gates of hell" (though I'm not so sure that the gate is a "symbol of power", though there certainly symbolism in understanding that death is a path to Judgement, and hence a doorway reference - if you have any references on the "symbol of power", I'd very much like to read it - it'll prove interesting). We all are destined for hades (the grave). Every single one of us will go there. Unless we are cremated of course (ironic, considering that the only way to avoid hades/hell is to be cremated in fire).

"Gehenna" is a Valley outside Jerusalem, a very real and literal place. You can still visit there today. It was a place where people went to burn their garbage, and sometimes if they were poor, they would burn their dead there also (I have not heard of pre-exilic references to sacrifices to Moloch, though - if you could provide some details (a source, or book to read), it might provide some interesting reading. When Jesus spoke of burning in gehenna, he was often speaking of the very real fires of gehenna (go back to page 3 and read post #27 - my response to Man concerning Mark 9, and how gehenna here is not referring to a spiritual/eternal place of fire and torment)

Hades is the subteraean abode of the dead. "Gehenna" is part of Hades. "Gehenna" is the part of hades where the unrighteous dead exist.

Tartaros" is a term completely DIFFERENT to gehenna. It is mentioned only once in the entire Bible. This term does refer to pain and suffering, but it is a place destined only for Satan and those angels who followed him. No human is ever described as going to this place, and since it is only mentioned once in the whole Bible, I find scriptural support of it being akin to "gehenna" a bit of a stretch.

Yes, it is completely different than Gehenna. I did not say they were the same. It is the holding place for the angels. It is akin to Gehenna from the standpoint of it being an unpleasant abode for those being held there.

Each of the words have their own separate meaning, and only one refers to eternal torment (and that be only for Satan and his Angels). I see it as flawed reasoning to suggest that all speak of the same place but describe different aspects of it.

Wrong. Gehenna is used a picture of eternal torment in store for the unrighteous. Funny how you are all about symbolism, figurative devices until they point to something you don't want to accept. Now you are trying to divest Jesus' use of Gehenna as figurative device as an example of what awaits the sinner for all eternity. You seem to burn the candle at both ends. You try to employ figuraive devices where none exist (Genesis 1) and then when faced with an genuine figurative device (picture/foreshadowing) you try to ignore it.

It sounds like you have taken a preconception of what hell should be like, and then imposed them on these words to fit into that belief. Perhaps it is because I did not grow up in a Christian family, or in the United States hearing preachings of Fire and Brimestone every week, so I had no idea what "hell" was when I first became a Christian (nearly 9 years ago now) - apart from what Hollywood presented to me, and I knew that was wrong. So I studied the Bible. I didn't know what Hell was except that it was a place I would rather not go to and heaven was better by far. As I continued my reading and my study, and found different interpretations of Hell by different people (eg, some said "punishment", while others simply referred to "separation", other more moderate and knowledgeable people said "I don't know, but I know heaven will be better"), I went to the original Greek a few years ago and found (quite to my surprise) that there were different words translated as Hell. Looking through these terms, I found it a bit of a stretch (to say the least) that all three words mean the same thing

The problem is that no one is saying the mean the "same thing" but that they basically refer to the same place, but refer to it in different ways. Each reference gives you a different understanding of hell, but taken together they form a more complete picture. Hell encompasses death, judgment, eternal separation from God and the suffering, misery and pain that accompanies that separation.

Just because someone doesn't want to admit the truth about hell and the eternal separation from God that will be the eternal condition of the unrighteous, does not make them more moderate or knowlegeable. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The fact remains that no credible Christian scholar accepts your view. Most of the people who subscribe to your views on hell usually belong to cults or nonmailine Christian groups.

In short, I completely disagree with you that they are all describing different aspects of the same place - the only way to come to that conclusion is to have an already held belief in Hell and then fit the Bible into that preconceived notion.

No one needs a preconcieved notion about hell. The fact remains that no matter how you view those three or four words, There are enough references to the unrighteous dead having to endure "eternal punishment" that it precludes any view that says that their punishment is only temporal before they cease to exist.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Hades is the subteraean abode of the dead. "Gehenna" is part of Hades. "Gehenna" is the part of hades where the unrighteous dead exist.

Textual evidence, please. There is nothing within the text of the Bible (that I am aware of) to suggest Hades and Gehenna are part of the same. Where is the textual link?

Yes, it is completely different than Gehenna. I did not say they were the same. It is the holding place for the angels. It is akin to Gehenna from the standpoint of it being an unpleasant abode for those being held there.

"akin to gehenna"? What makes it akin to a Valley outside Jerusalem, except for your already held belief that all three words describe aspects of the same place? How can one make such an assertion when there is only one reference to tartaros in the whole Bible????

Wrong. Gehenna is used a picture of eternal torment in store for the unrighteous. Funny how you are all about symbolism, figurative devices until they point to something you don't want to accept. Now you are trying to divest Jesus' use of Gehenna as figurative device as an example of what awaits the sinner for all eternity. You seem to burn the candle at both ends. You try to employ figuraive devices where none exist (Genesis 1) and then when faced with an genuine figurative device (picture/foreshadowing) you try to ignore it.

I am ignoring nothing. I notice you didn't even try to refute my comment on Mark 9 (particularly verse 49-50). Is it unsettling that after talking about burning in fire, Jesus states "EVERYONE will be salted with fire", which refers to everyone (why would Jesus saying we should all be "salted with fire" in the context of vv43-48? I gave my interpretation, so far no one has given a different one.

At least there is one ironic thing about this - you see a symbolic nature of hell in gehenna but not a symbolic version of creation in Genesis 1, whereas I see the opposite (symbolic creation, but not symbolic hell). Interesting, isn't it.

The problem is that no one is saying the mean the "same thing" but that they basically refer to the same place, but refer to it in different ways. Each reference gives you a different understanding of hell, but taken together they form a more complete picture. Hell encompasses death, judgment, eternal separation from God and the suffering, misery and pain that accompanies that separation.

Just because someone doesn't want to admit the truth about hell and the eternal separation from God that will be the eternal condition of the unrighteous, does not make them more moderate or knowlegeable. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The fact remains that no credible Christian scholar accepts your view. Most of the people who subscribe to your views on hell usually belong to cults or nonmailine Christian groups.

First, you misunderstood my comments on "moderate or knowledgeable". I simply meant the people who knew the most about the Bible that i have met (pastors, and others who went to study theology) often express an "I don't know" approach.

Second, please define "credible Christian scholar"? for the record, I would consider myself Conservative-mainline Protestant. I attend an Anglican Church in Sydney. My view of Hell differs from the view my Church suggests. I don't know what the "official church stance" is, but most preachers/pastors that have come through in the 8 and a half years I've been there have expressed the "I don't know" philosophy - "I don't know, but heaven sure trumps hell, so heaven is much better" (paraphrased, of course, but you get the idea).

Third, Fire and Brimestone preaching is (from my experience and discussions with people both in real life and online) confined primarily to the "Bible Belt" in America. I don't know much about this place. It sounds almost the exact opposite to where I grew up. I grew up in a very multicultural area, where Christianity is the minority belief (multi-culturalism meaning Buddhism and Islam were larger populations, as well as the simple "I don't care'ists"). I have never been to a church that preached fire and brimestone, though I have never been to one that preached what I believe either. It is a belief held by many groups of Christians though. And it doesn't make them any less "Christian" for it, either, in my opinion.

No one needs a preconcieved notion about hell. The fact remains that no matter how you view those three or four words, There are enough references to the unrighteous dead having to endure "eternal punishment" that it precludes any view that says that their punishment is only temporal before they cease to exist.

Nothing to say about Dante, then? It's the newest piece of information I have given you as to why I don't believe a literal hell-as-pain-and-torture. I have not provided all my reasons for believing in destruction, but this is one of the key reasons, so I thought there would be something you'd like to add to that to show me that the RCC did not use Dante's fictional work to influence their doctrine on Hell.

[ParanoidAndroid]

As an added note to my last response on the bottom of the previous page, shiloh, I wanted to provide for you the final clinching arguments for my belief in hell. I have provided most of my arguments scattered through my posts *I summed them up in a previous post when you asked me to post all my evidence - my interpretation of Mark 9:43-49, the words translated as "hell", the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, a few others passages. And most recently in a recent post, I discussed the history of the doctrine of Hell, centred on the views of Dante's fictional work and its influence on Church doctrine. That covers almost all my arguments concerning Hell. Almost.

Perhaps you are right - my views are certainly in the minority about the soul being a finite creation. Do you accept though that if the soul is immortal it may simply be "separated" from God for eternity? In my earlier posts, I have mentioned that I am open to this possibility. I don't think the Bible supports hell-as-punishment, but you can make a case for hell-as-separation. This is what I used to believe about Hell. I saw two plausible explanations (1- if the soul was immortal, it was separation, or 2- if the soul was finite, it was a second and complete death). I believed the first for nigh on 6 years (perhaps 6 and a half). For the majority of my Christian life, I believed in a Hell that was complete and total separation from God for all eternity. It made sense. People chose to disobey God and go their own way, and so when the time came, God honoured their wishes and separated himself from them. It would be wrong of God to force someone who lived their whole lives despising God to live with God for eternity. People disobeyed God and set themselves up as their own mini-gods living their own life their own way, and so God eventually gave them what they wanted (separation from him). That makes sense in the context of free will.

However, when I did a study on free will, I found out that the Bible did not support free will (and even supported predestination to an extent). This forced me to re-evaluate my opinion on Hell. If Paul is right in Romans 9 that some were made for destruction simply to show Glory to those who were chosen for Glory, then suddenly the immortal soul no longer made any sense. It was the proverbial straw that broke the equally proverbial camel's back. If we were destined/predestined, then God would not simply separate those who chose to go against him, because God prepared them for destruction - or in other words: they didn't have a choice. Hence I re-evaluated the view, and changed my opinion of Hell to the second view I discussed.

I still see the scriptural support for the first view (an immortal soul) and if so, eternal separation, but I also see scriptural support for a finite soul, and thus death complete. I do not see a scriptural view of pain and torture at all. The passages are scattered, found in parables or references to gehenna, and to counter-point those scriptures are passages that describe Hell in other metaphorical terms (eg, a barren wasteland, or Darkness, or like looking in on a party you were invited to but declined and now it was too late - there are a few other images the Bible uses as well, but these are the most common). With these variations of descriptions of Hell, the concept of Hell as a place of fire and torture is, I came very early to believe, highly unlikely.

So just to recap and ask a question - are you open to the possibility that Hell is simply eternal separation from God? Or are you hell-bent (no pun intended) on viewing Hell as a place of punishment and torture?

Thanks for reading

~ Paranoid Android

[seekingthegospeltruth]

There is a literal Hell as it is mentioned in the bible.

What I recommend doing is looking up the word 'Hell' in a concordance, and reading all the verses that mentions Hell.

Remember to also read the verse in it's context.

[ParanoidAndroid]

There is a literal Hell as it is mentioned in the bible.

What I recommend doing is looking up the word 'Hell' in a concordance, and reading all the verses that mentions Hell.

Remember to also read the verse in it's context.

Hi seekingthegospeltruth,

You also need to look up all the verses that mention hell and note which word for "hell" is being used. I've done it already, so here are the details:

Words translated as "hell":

Hades - Appears in the New Testament on 11 occasions - Matthew 11:23, 16:18; Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 2:31; 1 Corinthians 15:55; Revelation 1:18, 6:8, 20:13

Gehenna - Appears in the New Testament on 12 occasions - Matthew 5:22, 5:29, 5:30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 23:33; Mark 9:43, 9:45, 9:47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6

Tartaros - Appears in the Bible on 1 occasion - 2 Peter 2:4

When you look at it like this, words translated as hell appear only 24 times in the entire New Testament (and more than a third of these are in Matthew's gospel - twice as "hades", 7 times as "gehenna"). Considering that the Bible devotes so little time to the topic, it's strange to some extent that many Christians place so much emphasis on this concept.

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 27 2008, 05:00 AM)

Hades is the subteraean abode of the dead. "Gehenna" is part of Hades. "Gehenna" is the part of hades where the unrighteous dead exist.

Textual evidence, please. There is nothing within the text of the Bible (that I am aware of) to suggest Hades and Gehenna are part of the same. Where is the textual link?

And in hell (Gk. Hades)he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. (Luke 16:23-25) Both Lazurus and the rich man are in Hades. Abraham's bosom in ancient Jewish literature/thought pertained to a part of Hades where the righteous dead were assigned, and the unrighteous went to a different part of Hades wherein they were tormented. Jesus uses "Gehenna" as an avid picture of the abode of the unrighteous.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 27 2008, 05:00 AM)

Yes, it is completely different than Gehenna. I did not say they were the same. It is the holding place for the angels. It is akin to Gehenna from the standpoint of it being an unpleasant abode for those being held there.

"akin to gehenna"? What makes it akin to a Valley outside Jerusalem, except for your already held belief that all three words describe aspects of the same place? How can one make such an assertion when there is only one reference to tartaros in the whole Bible????

It is akin to it in the sense of being a place of torment. It is just another compartment of the same place where the angels are kept.

Second, please define "credible Christian scholar"?

Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, John Gill, A.T. Robertson, C. I. Scofield, Spiros Zodiates, Augustus Strong, Martin Luther, etc. Basically, you have to reject the whole compendium of Christian thought to reject the proper view of hell.

I am ignoring nothing. I notice you didn't even try to refute my comment on Mark 9 (particularly verse 49-50). Is it unsettling that after talking about burning in fire, Jesus states "EVERYONE will be salted with fire", which refers to everyone (why would Jesus saying we should all be "salted with fire" in the context of vv43-48? I gave my interpretation, so far no one has given a different one.

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and have peace one with another.

(Mark 9:43-50)

Your first problem is with your assumption about where the context begins. The context for the remarks in vv. 43-48 starts up in vv. 38-42. That is where the line of thought begins.

And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

(Mark 9:38-42)

Scope of Jesus remarks center around not questioning whether or not other men operating in Jesus' Name are really believers and not to give offense to them to cause them to stumble and fall away. Thus, in vv.43-48, when Jesus is talking about cutting off parts of the body that cause us to sin, he is talking about removing from us anything that would cause other people to stumble or would bring reproach to our profession of faith. It is better for our foot or hand to be cast into hell, than for us to lose our lives over those things that hinder us in serving God. The Bible also calls that "circumcising your heart."

Now as to vv. 49-50:

Now Jesus is speaking a deeper spiritual truth. The "salt" is a reference to the sacrifices and in THIS part of the chapter, Jesus does not use fire to represent the abode of the righteous dead, but of the fire of the sacrifices. Jesus has changed the fire metaphor to represent something else.

Salting a sacrifice speaks of being devoted to God. It was and still used today as a means of preventing putrification, thus it speaks to preservation. "Salting with fire" speaks to being preserved in the midst of trials. Verses 49-50 are echoed by Paul's teaching on presenting our bodies as living sacrifices. It ties in to the former verses, in that we are to remove that which hinders us and causes us to impede others in their service to God and the rest is is to offered to God as a living sacrifice completely devoted to Him.

At least there is one ironic thing about this - you see a symbolic nature of hell in gehenna but not a symbolic version of creation in Genesis 1, whereas I see the opposite (symbolic creation, but not symbolic hell). Interesting, isn't it.

What is interesting is that when pressed for textual indicators of symbolism/metaphors in Genesis 1, you can't produce them and even make the claim that such indicators don't even need to be there for you to justify your "metaphorical" argument. It shows that you have alot to learn about literary analysis. You simply run to "figurative" arguments when you don't like what the text says and then you ignore the literal meaning of figurative devices that are present in the text when they become inconvenient. Essentially, you employ a subjective, smorgasboard approach to biblical interpretation that pretty much means that you interpret the Bible to fit your whims while brushing aside REAL objective, competent interpretative methods.

Nothing to say about Dante, then? It's the newest piece of information I have given you as to why I don't believe a literal hell-as-pain-and-torture. I have not provided all my reasons for believing in destruction, but this is one of the key reasons, so I thought there would be something you'd like to add to that to show me that the RCC did not use Dante's fictional work to influence their doctrine on Hell.

Dante is irrelevant. The fact is, we are dealing with what the Bible says.

People are always claiming that church doctrine comes from some other place other than the Bible. It is said that we derived the virgin birth and the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and even Heaven from the Babylonians, the ancient Greeks and Romans. So, it is not surprising that someone would come up with some silly argument that our current view on hell is biblically based but on some work of fiction. So far, I have seen a constant assault on the origin of every basic, defining element of the Christian faith. I have noticed a constant pattern. Its funny how these "origin" arguments about where we get our ideas about salvation, heaven, hell, etc. are never used against peripheral issues, but that it is the basic "salvation-issue" concepts that are challenged. It shows that the enemy is trying to erode doctrines like hell in order to keep unbelievers from seeing the primacy and urgency of the gospel message for their lives and what is worse is that he is using misinformed believers to deseminate these false teachings.

However, when I did a study on free will, I found out that the Bible did not support free will (and even supported predestination to an extent). This forced me to re-evaluate my opinion on Hell. If Paul is right in Romans 9 that some were made for destruction simply to show Glory to those who were chosen for Glory, then suddenly the immortal soul no longer made any sense. It was the proverbial straw that broke the equally proverbial camel's back. If we were destined/predestined, then God would not simply separate those who chose to go against him, because God prepared them for destruction - or in other words: they didn't have a choice. Hence I re-evaluated the view, and changed my opinion of Hell to the second view I discussed.

Ah yes, the claptrap about God creating some to be saved and some to be damned. I can imagine that it would be a convenient argument against the eternality hell, but the problem is that the Bible does not teach that.

Well I have news for you: The Bible says that God loved the whole world and it was the whole world that Jesus came and died. The Bible says that it is not God's will any should perish but that all should come to repentance. He did not quallify that statement to include only a select few.

The chief passage used by those who support predestination seems to be Romans 9 (which uses the word only once). Nowhere in the chapter is it saying that God chooses some to be saved, and some to be lost.

For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

(Romans 9:15-18)

The mercy spoken of in v. 18 is the mercy God gives the unrepentant before He gives them over to their sin. It is a different type of mercy than what God offers to the vessels of mercy mentioned later in v. 23. That is verse is talking about salvation. Who are the vessels of mercy? To whom is the gift of salvation available. Paul sheds more light on this in Roman 11:32 which is still following the same line of thought that Paul began in chapter 9. Paul says:

For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. Rom. 11:32

This is speaking of the mercy of salvation being available to all, not to a select group.

Romans 9:15-18 in no way teaches that some are chosen or "elected" to be saved. That is not contained in the line of thought anywhere in the chapter or the line of thought contained in Romans 9-11. It does not teach unconditional election at all.

The purpose of election is the setting aside of that which deals with the flesh. It pertains to service.

It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

(Romans 9:12)

It does not pertain to salvation in the sense that some will be saved and others lost. God in His Sovereignty does not operate that way. It is God's Sovereign Will that everyone have a chance to be saved. Election pertains to saved people AFTER they are saved, not unbelievers before they are saved. Nowhere does the Bible say that election is unconditional.

Who did Christ die for?

1. For all (1 Timothy 2:6; Isaiah 53:6).

2. For every man (Heb. 2:9).

3. For the world (John 3:16).

4. For the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2).

5. For the ungodly (Rom. 5:6).

6. For false teachers (2 Peter 2:1).

7. For many (Matthew 20:28).

8. For Israel (John 11:50-51).

9. For the Church (Eph. 5:25).

10. For "me" (Gal. 2:20).

That leaves no one out.

So just to recap and ask a question - are you open to the possibility that Hell is simply eternal separation from God? Or are you hell-bent (no pun intended) on viewing Hell as a place of punishment and torture?

I believe that it is both, because that is what the Bible teahes and I believe the Bible.

[ParanoidAndroid]

And in hell (Gk. Hades)he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. (Luke 16:23-25) Both Lazurus and the rich man are in Hades. Abraham's bosom in ancient Jewish literature/thought pertained to a part of Hades where the righteous dead were assigned, and the unrighteous went to a different part of Hades wherein they were tormented. Jesus uses "Gehenna" as an avid picture of the abode of the unrighteous.

I addressed this on page 2 and 3 of this thread. One word, my friend - parable. Parables are stories given to provide ONE theological truth. In this section, that is to show that if people didn't believe Moses or the Prophets, then they won't believe someone, even if they are raised from the dead. This parable is not dealing with the nature of Hell, but is a prophecy/commentary referring Jesus' soon-to-be death and resurrection (as has been shown through history, people still don't believe, even though Jesus did rise from the dead). This passage CANNOT be used to comment on the nature of Hell.

In response to this back on page 3, one member mentioned that parables can have multiple meanings - something I suggested is not backed up by the text. If this passage here be an allusion to both Jesus' resurrection AND to the nature of Hell, then it would be the only place in the Bible where a parable had multiple meanings, because every single other parable given only portrays one major theological theme! This is consistent throughout all the parables, and while we may get some interest in knowing some details of parables, the over-riding theme is that there is ONE theological truth be gained, and only one. If this parable is referring to multiple theological truths (1- "even if someone raises from the dead, they will still not be believed", and 2- the nature of Hell) it would be the only parable in existence to do so, and I would expect you to provide quite a lot of detail to prove otherwise on this one.

It is akin to it in the sense of being a place of torment. It is just another compartment of the same place where the angels are kept.

*relevant section in bold*

Textual proof, please?

Second, please define "credible Christian scholar"?

Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, John Gill, A.T. Robertson, C. I. Scofield, Spiros Zodiates, Augustus Strong, Martin Luther, etc. Basically, you have to reject the whole compendium of Christian thought to reject the proper view of hell.

I was thinking more along the lines of characteristics of credible scholars rather than a list of names, but thanks for trying anyway. But if we are talking about that list, perhaps a few quotes from the last of that illustrious list you quoted might help you see some perspective to this:

Quotes from Martin Luther:

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

~Quoted in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmuthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. 1.

“To kill a peasant is not murder; it is helping to extinguish the conflagration. Let there be no half measures! Crush them! Cut their throats! Transfix them. Leave no stone unturned! To kill a peasant is to destroy a mad dog!” – “If they say that I am very hard and merciless, mercy be damned. Let whoever can stab, strangle, and kill them like mad dogs”

~ Erlangen Vol 24, Pg. 294

"Burn their (the Jews) synagogues. Forbid them all that I have mentioned above. Force them to work and treat them with every kind of severity, as Moses did in the desert and slew three thousand... If that is no use, we must drive them away like mad dogs, in order that we may not be partakers of their abominable blasphemy and of all their vices, and in order that we may not deserve the anger of God and be damned with them. I have done my duty. Let everyone see how he does his. I am excused."

~ About the Jews and Their Lies,' quoted by O'Hare, in 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 290.

“ If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words I baptize thee in the name of Abraham”

~ Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413.

“The word and work of God is quite clear, viz., that women are made to be either wives or prostitutes.”

~ Quote source unknown by myself

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tell’s us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.”

~ Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is this truly your idea of a credible scholar? My respect for Martin Luther extends only so far as that he had the courage to stand up and face the dominance of Roman Catholicism. As such, his courage will put him down through history as one of the founding fathers of modern Protestantism. His views are hardly Christian though, and I think his moral character is abhorrent. He was an anti-semite, hated women, hated commoners, and even believed our Lord Jesus was a sinner and a fornicator. His life and core values did not gel with what Jesus or the Bible taught, and is one of the primary reasons (I think) that Luther campaigned to remove the book of James from the Bible (Luther viewed "faith alone" in the strictest sense possible - works were unnecessary, and he was uncomfortable with James' teachings on "I'll show you my Faith by what I do". This is shown through his writings, as suggested here through just a select few of his quotes (I can find more for you if you want).

My apologies for moving this slightly off-topic, but it provides a great platform to leap from to show exactly how much (or rather, how little) you know about early Church history, and those whom you perceive as "credible sources".

Your first problem is with your assumption about where the context begins. The context for the remarks in vv. 43-48 starts up in vv. 38-42. That is where the line of thought begins.

Actually, the context starts long before that, going right back to the beginning of chapter 9, and not finishing until well into chapter 11. Nevertheless, 43-50 are one single thought, encapsulated as one idea.

Now as to vv. 49-50:

Now Jesus is speaking a deeper spiritual truth. The "salt" is a reference to the sacrifices and in THIS part of the chapter, Jesus does not use fire to represent the abode of the righteous dead, but of the fire of the sacrifices. Jesus has changed the fire metaphor to represent something else.

Salting a sacrifice speaks of being devoted to God. It was and still used today as a means of preventing putrification, thus it speaks to preservation. "Salting with fire" speaks to being preserved in the midst of trials. Verses 49-50 are echoed by Paul's teaching on presenting our bodies as living sacrifices. It ties in to the former verses, in that we are to remove that which hinders us and causes us to impede others in their service to God and the rest is is to offered to God as a living sacrifice completely devoted to Him.

I keep forgetting you're a KJV only'ist, believing only in the validity of the textus receptus as the sole authority on the New Testament text of the Bible. Here I guess there is no way we can agree. The oldest and most reliable texts make no references to sacrifices being salted with salt. As such, there is no reason to believe the validity of this interpretation refers to sacrifices.

I know you disagree with this, but the majority of modern scholars, both Christian and secular, dismiss the textus receptus as totally useless (based on its inaccuracy), preferring the Novum Testamentum Graece. In this text, the earliest and most reliable, the last part of the sentence does not exist! The term "every sacrifice will be salted with salt" does not exist, and is universally accepted as a later addition. As such, we cannot textually argue that this is referring to sacrifices. This is one issue where I can see you're just going to say "the KJV is the only authorised version and what it says goes". At this point, I would highly recommend you read the thread I started in this section of the board entitled "Salted with Fire" - thread link HERE. It is a more extensive version of the short response I gave to Mark 9. However, it is almost 4 A4-pages in length and you may not have time (no one has yet to make a single response to the thread in question). It will answer most of the questions/comments you would make here about the topic.

I'll continue the rest of the discussion in my next post - the Forum is telling me I've exceeded the maximum number of quote tags allowable by a post.