HELL

[steve]

jriccitelli,

You strike me as a frustrated preacher, who, looking for an audience, accidentally stumbled into a debate, without realizing where you were. You preach (sometimes many paragraphs on points unrelated to the thread's topic), but you do not seem to know what it means to present a case.

all the scriptures the early Church had and relied upon were the Torah

Actually, they had the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. They also had the sayings of Jesus, and some of the epistles that were in circulation. Having corrected your statement, I still have no idea how it plays into your argument. In fact, I am not at all clear what your argument is.

Why does Paidions argument and your theology ‘seem’ to come across ‘as if’ all the Church had to go on was Paul’s letters

I can't imagine what you think I might have said to give this impression. Have I (or Paidion, for that matter) ever implied this in any way?

First of all Peter chooses the Prophet Joel as his first text (read Joel as your foundation for the Gospel, then adjust accordingly) ‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS, AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME, 21 ‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’ Then Peter reminds them “you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” Peter tells them they just crucified the one who came to save them. Then next, David’s words are the foundational text: MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE; 27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES” Sounds rather self-serving, unless of course you’re ok with the fact that that is what Saviors do, they save you. When Peter says God will not abandon David/Jesus to Hades, that is the Hope that David had, and ‘THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED’! So, Steve why are you expressing that Hades, death, judgment, heaven, or saving one’s own life 'not' a central concern for the unbeliever or Peter? (Or, were not necessarily central to this sermon?)

Nothing you have observed in the above paragraph has any bearing on our topic (nor do the paragraphs that follow in your post). In the scriptures you discuss above, there is no reference at all to eschatological hell or heaven. Why does Christ's confidence in God raising Him from the dead sound "rather self-serving"?

I wrote:

Did Peter say anything to scare the audience, you ask? Well, it seems to me that announcing the fact that God raised from the dead and set on the throne of the universe the very man that the audience had earlier crucified might tend to have a chilling effect. (Steve pg. 4)

You responded:

Yes it did have a chilling effect, so why do you write as if this wasn’t a part of the central message of the gospel?

Did you not read what I said? The fact that Jesus is enthroned as King is the very essence of the gospel. Why do you claim that I said it wasn't a part of the central gospel message? My contention is that there is no mention of heaven or hell in any of the gospel presentations. You have done nothing to counter this claim—nor will anybody else who uses the canonical scriptures as their basis.

I confess, it is hard for me to trouble myself to read your posts, when they reflect a failure on your part to read mine.

[Paidion]

Why does Paidions argument and your theology ‘seem’ to come across ‘as if’ all the Church had to go on was Paul’s letters, as if Paul's lack of the word hell or heaven offsets the abundance of verses in the OT, or only within Paul's letters is the wealth of applicable knowledge of judgment and hell.

You don't get it at all, do you? Steve and I both look to Jesus as the main source of our understanding. After all, He is the One who revealed the Father as He really is.

The reason I pointed out that Paul didn't mention Gehenna even once, was as an indicator that Paul may not have seen Gehenna as a place or state of post-mortem judgment. Otherwise, he surely would have mentioned it, since he did warn his readers a lot about the consequences of wrong doing.

Steve understands Gehenna as the area near Jerusalem where bodies were burned, and suggests that Jesus was warning the Jews about the coming destruction of the people in Jerusalem in 70 A.D., warning them that they would die and their bodies burned in the Valley of Hinnom.

How you get from this to your idea that we are implying that the Church has only Paul's letters "to go on" is a great wonder!

[jriccitelli]

You strike me as a frustrated preacher, who, looking for an audience, accidentally stumbled into a debate, without realizing where you were. You preach (sometimes many paragraphs on points unrelated to the thread's topic), but you do not seem to know what it means to present a case.

I love your ad hominem points. I have never attempted to make a synopsis of your character, yet I find you doing so repeatedly. You can read my testimony, in there is why I teach and write. The main emphasis being: 1. the commission, 2. the lack of biblical nourishment and literacy in the world, 3. I’ve attended too many funerals of unbelievers. I never was, nor had any ‘desire’ to preach. I write as this is my study time, and I am doing exactly what you do, debate people in order to educate others.
I am not frustrated, I have been faulted for being an optimist, I have many hobbies I love, I am motivated because I love His Word, truth, and people.

You are the one in your own context (pg4) that said you are ‘advocating only the same gospel Jesus and the apostles preached’

So am I in danger of stumbling the "little ones" by advocating only the same gospel Jesus and the apostles preached? (pg4)

My reference to the scriptures the ‘early Church’ had was just as ‘you’ stated “Jesus and the apostles”
I obviously have, and have repeatedly wrote out ‘Moses and the Prophets’, Pentateuch and every other combination of words to describe ‘The Book’ over and over, yet you know, as well as I, that much literature refers to the whole OT as Torah, Tanakh or whatever transliteration of the word you want to use.

My argument, and what makes me believe this, is your conclusions and arguments that Jesus didn’t preach much about hell (which is avoiding the point that it is Judgment – not just a place, not just Gehenna). You say the OT is: only historical judgments (challenging me that I couldn’t find one verse that is post-mortem), now you seem to be agreeing with Paidion, and saying even Paul had no thoughts of post-mortem judgment in his letters, and at least had no emphasis of Judgment day in his writings or Paul's gospel. Even considering now that the LOF is best understood as a ‘place of purification’!?

Our friend John316yes may be a good example of what happens when we present a gospel to sinners that is primarily a message of escape from hell. Converts are made for whom the "hope of heaven" motivates, whereas love for God apparently would not. (Steve pg3)

I don't think people are converted just on hell, but do you have to get rid of hell to present the gospel?? The reason the prostitutes and sinners came first, was that acknowledgment of 'guilt' proceeds the Gospel, and still our message has rung out Jesus loves me this I know, hand in hand with repentance and fear of God.
I responded to your challenge, what about Acts 2? What about Joel, and David speaking of the grave?

How did all those people in Acts get saved without being threatened with hell or promised heaven? The apostles preached Christ there—not some scheme of postmortem destinies. Read Peter's sermons in Acts 2, 3, and 10; or Paul's in Acts 13, 14 or 17. Then tell me what it was that the apostles said that convicted people's hearts and brought about their conversions. Whatever it was, it was not promises of a rosy afterlife—something that they never mentioned. (Steve pg3)
My claim is that, in preaching the gospel to unbelievers, no threat of hell was used by the apostles in Acts (Steve pg.5)

You have said this before in other threads, you have appealed to the idea that hell or Judgment is not a part of the Gospel numerous times.

[steve]

Did your post get cut off? It ended a bit abruptly, without resolution, as if you intended to make a point.

I cannot follow whatever it is you are trying to argue. You wrote:

You are the one in your own context (pg4) that said you are ‘advocating only the same gospel Jesus and the apostles preached’

I don't understand the point you are raising. Yes, I did say that, but what is your follow-up? What point are you making?

You wrote:

My reference to the scriptures the ‘early Church’ had was just as ‘you’ stated “Jesus and the apostles”

I am not sure where you are quoting me from, but are you saying that I somewhere denied that the early church had the Old Testament scriptures? How could anyone get this from anything I have ever said?

much literature refers to the whole OT as Torah, Tanakh or whatever transliteration of the word you want to use.

"Tanakh" is not a transliteration of "Torah." Both are transliterations of separate Hebrew words. The latter means "the Law" and is the ordinary term among Jews for the first five books of the Bible. The Tanakh is the whole of what we call the Old Testament.

My argument, and what makes me believe this, is your conclusions and arguments that Jesus didn’t preach much about hell (which is avoiding the point that it is Judgment – not just a place, not just Gehenna).

Well nothing I have said or written would give the impression that Jesus didn't talk much about judgment. The judgment on Jerusalem was a major emphasis of His message. I never denied this. What I denied is that He talked much about hell. You have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise.

You say the OT is: only historical judgments (challenging me that I couldn’t find one verse that is post-mortem), now you seem to be agreeing with Paidion, and saying even Paul had no thoughts of post-mortem judgment in his letters

I think you are very confused. I do not recall either Paidion or myself claiming that Paul did not speak about postmortem judgment. I would be surprised if Paidion claimed this. I certainly never would do so.

Paidion can answer for himself as to his views of Old Testament judgments, but I have said to you that there is no reference (certainly no unambiguous reference) to postmortem judgments in the Old Testament. You have never provided any evidence that this observation is inaccurate. You simply assert that the passages speaking of temporal judgments imply an additional postmortem judgment. I can find no indication of this assumption in reading any of the passages.

Even considering now that the LOF is best understood as a ‘place of purification’!?

Have you followed these threads so poorly as to not know that this is one of the major views defended here from the beginning?

I don't think people are converted just on hell, but do you have to get rid of hell to present the gospel??

Would it be asking too much of you to make comments relevant to some position that you or someone else is advocating? Did anyone suggest that we should get rid of hell? Why should anyone take the time to interact with you (or even to read your posts) if you are not going to interact with the subject under discussion, and you change the topic to that which no one has asserted?

The reason the prostitutes and sinners came first, was that acknowledgment of 'guilt' proceeds the Gospel, and still our message has rung out Jesus loves me this I know, hand in hand with repentance and fear of God.

In your mind, are you arguing some point relevant to our conversation? This is an example of my earlier observation that you are preaching, not debating.

I responded to your challenge, what about Acts 2? What about Joel, and David speaking of the grave?

You did? Were you suggesting that there was something in Joel 2 or in David's words in Psalm 16 relevant to the postmortem destinies of men? Did you think you found something there? Could you point it out, please?

How did all those people in Acts get saved without being threatened with hell or promised heaven? The apostles preached Christ there—not some scheme of postmortem destinies. Read Peter's sermons in Acts 2, 3, and 10; or Paul's in Acts 13, 14 or 17. Then tell me what it was that the apostles said that convicted people's hearts and brought about their conversions. Whatever it was, it was not promises of a rosy afterlife—something that they never mentioned. (Steve pg3)
My claim is that, in preaching the gospel to unbelievers, no threat of hell was used by the apostles in Acts (Steve pg.5)

This is your quotation of my challenge. Why quote this, if not to answer it? I can't follow your thinking here.

You have said this before in other threads, you have appealed to the idea that hell or Judgment is not a part of the Gospel numerous times.

You are adding the words "or Judgment," misrepresenting my words. Why do you feel a need to do this? Why not just read what I say and do one of three things:

1) Acknowledge that I actually study before I pontificate, and happen to be correct in this case;

2) Disagree and come back with a relevant rebuttal; or

3) Disagree silently (since you can't refute the statement), and drop out of the present discussion.

[jriccitelli]

As a teacher I am going to ‘try’ and avoid everything but what’s central to the argument. And since biblical texts are my favorite subject, I will go back to;

Read Peter's sermons in Acts 2, 3, and 10; or Paul's in Acts 13, 14 or 17. Then tell me what it was that the apostles said that convicted people's hearts and brought about their conversions. (Steve pg.4)

To which I responded:

First of all Peter chooses the Prophet Joel as his first text (read Joel as your foundation for the Gospel, then adjust accordingly) ‘THE SUN WILL BE TURNED INTO DARKNESS, AND THE MOON INTO BLOOD, BEFORE THE GREAT AND GLORIOUS DAY OF THE LORD SHALL COME, 21 ‘AND IT SHALL BE THAT EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.’ Then Peter reminds them “you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death” Peter tells them they just crucified the one who came to save them. Then next, David’s words are the foundational text: MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE; 27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES” Sounds rather self-serving, unless of course you’re ok with the fact that that is what Saviors do, they save you. When Peter says God will not abandon David/Jesus to Hades, that is the Hope that David had, and ‘THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED’! So, Steve why are you expressing that Hades, death, judgment, heaven, or saving one’s own life 'not' a central concern for the unbeliever or Peter? (Or, were not necessarily central to this sermon?)
Peter now refers back to the verse of Acts 2:27, and says in 2:32 that David could look beyond the surety of death and burial (2:29) because of the hope in God’s ‘promise’ (the promise contained in our archaic ‘Old’ Testament), then Peter again reminds them of Jesus – “whom you crucified”. The crowd did not argue with the accusation, they accepted the guilt. They didn’t say ‘well we see know how Gods love is all that matters to us!’ How could they even go there? They were without hope, condemned. They ‘may’ understand that by accepting the implications of Gods 'Sacrifice' and the Lamb of God as recorded and understood by considering Abraham and the Law of sacrifices, thus they 'could' have forgiveness, but that kind of typology takes a while to sink in, as even Paul had not even touched upon it all yet. The answer to the message was simple, just the same as for Noah, Lot, Jesus and all the Prophets – Repent – “because my anger is kindled against you” (Job 42:7).

I pointed out that Peter refers to the Prophet Joel in his first sermon, then David. This I think defines my position that NT definitions are founded upon the OT. And that the NT writers generally had the OT in mind when speaking on any subject, and thus drew ‘their’ definitions from them to describe and warn of the final judgements (And the NT writers ‘I believe’ had an intention, conscious or not, that they were writing to all of mankind and that there is no partiality with God towards ‘sinners’ as scripture demands a judgment of all men). .
I understand Gehenna as just one more metaphor in a ‘long’ list of metaphors warning and describing what will happen to the rebellious sinner, generally post-mortem, but pre-mortem punishments and judgments do not change that fact that God can or will do ‘just the same’ post-mortem. For example Korah and his followers, Herod, Ananias and Sapphira, they experienced a direct pre-mortem judgment but this does ‘not extinguish’ any possible future post-mortem punishment. Nor do I see any reason to think anyone guilty of the same sins, (or any sin) would escape such a punishment or judgment just because they escaped the judgment here on earth. So, I think the OT judgments must refer also to what awaits ‘any’ sinner who does not repent, no matter ‘where’ they are, or ‘when’ they lived.
I do not see how the punishment, warnings and judgments given to some, were not serving also as a warning to ‘all’ of humanity. Many people ‘since’ have been guilty of the exact sin as Ananias and Sapphira, but none that I ‘know of’ since have gotten a direct judgment of death ‘straight from’ God. Many go to their graves thinking they were never found out, but the text indicates to me that no-one is going to escape the examples demonstrated to us in God’s word of judgments and the consequences – punishment and ‘death’ eternal. (Herod and Korah may get a second chance, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t put my own ‘hope’ in it)

So when you say you say: “There was no divine revelation, prior to Jesus Himself, of any kind of eschatological hell” ('What’s the purpose of Israel' thread pg.1*), I suppose you are saying “There was no divine revelation, prior to Jesus Himself, of any kind of eschatological Gehenna” (people like me see that all three can refer to punishment either 'here or there' the point being - you cannot escape it 'no matter where' you are).

So, are you saying “There was no divine revelation, prior to Jesus Himself, of any kind of eschatological punishment”?

(*since that thread spun off from this threads discussion of Gehenna also…)

[steve]

I am not sure how to put my position any plainer. If by "eschatological" we mean "at the end of the world," then I am indeed affirming that no such vision of eschatological judgment is found in the Old Testament, unless it is in Daniel 12:2, which I aam not inclined to to as eschatological, though many do. Apart from that verse, it is not really very controversial to say that the Old Testament is fairly silent about the end of the world.

All I can say is that this has been my claim since long ago in our discussions. You have had many opportunities to prove this wrong, if it can be done. So far, I have seen no evidence from your posts to suggest I am mistaken about this.

[Paidion]

If it is not an open question in your mind, I will not seek to disabuse you of your convictions.

Thank you for that word "disabuse", Steve. I have never before encountered it in all of my 75 years. I added it (and its definition) to my private list of useful words.

[Homer]

Steve,

I'm still hoping to hear your explanation regarding the motivating factors for the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11. Were they described as being motivated by self interest or no?

[Roberto]

Just as a bystander here, it looks like it might help to categorize the actual issues and keep track of what each person' response are in general. That way, if someone ignores a challenge it can be duly noted!

[steve]

Homer,

Go back to the my first post after you raised the question. I answered directly. In your next post, you said something like "Was that your answer...?" I didn't respond, since it was obviously my answer.