HELL

[steve7150]

. The eternal punishment interpretation became ingrained into orthodox doctrine without much critical thought by the church leaders.


Steve7150, that reminds me: Roman Catholics (and perhaps others) rely as much on the official teachings of their leaders as on the Bible itself. Therefore, "hell" doctrine is not something that is at all debatable or unclear for at least ~50% of self-described Christians.

You do make some serious accusations there, though (doctrine chosen for political purposes and/or without critical thought). I don't know enough to refute what you say, but I also would need some sort of evidence before I accepted it.









I can only point to circumstantial evidence which is to look at the actions of the Papacy in the dark & middle ages. They murdered millions of non Catholics because of a lust for power and they coddled up to many kings and princes for political power. They also placed themselves as the judges regarding who would make it to heaven by selling salvation for the right price. So the flip side of all this would be make the threat of hell as terrorizing as possible hence the eternal
torment doctrine to them was like a gift from above.

Just to add one last thing which is if hell could be presented as overwhelmingly terrorizing as possible wouldn't that drive up the price you would pay for salvation?

[Roberto]

So it isn't really conclusive. Maybe we should say so when we present something as evidence that might not be?

Roberto, what are you trying to say? Who is this "we" who is "presenting something as evidence that might not be"? Are you hinting that I have done that?

All I did was make the following comment:

I, too, have wondered why the chains are everlasting whereas the angels who are restricted by those chains are kept there only until the Great Judgment.

What is this "something" you think I was presenting as evidence?

It seems to me that you are presenting a verse as evidence for a certain theological understanding of aionios, whereas that verse is capable of various readings.

[Paidion]

It seems to me that since all of the Gehenna talk in the New Testament ...

How come the apostle Paul, who wrote more than 44% books of the New Testament used no "Gehenna talk" in any of them? He didn't even use the word "Gehenna"—not even once.

[Roberto]

It seems to me that since all of the Gehenna talk in the New Testament ...

How come the apostle Paul, who wrote more than 44% books of the New Testament used no "Gehenna talk" in any of them? He didn't even use the word "Gehenna"—not even once.

That may be true, but he does speak of eschatological punishment in other ways.....

[Paidion]

It seems to me that you are presenting a verse as evidence for a certain theological understanding of aionios, whereas that verse is capable of various readings.

How could I be, when "aionios" doesn't even occur in that verse?

[Roberto]

How could I be, when "aionios" doesn't even occur in that verse?

Substitute "aidios": "It seems to me that you are presenting a verse as evidence for a certain theological understanding of "aidios", whereas that verse is capable of various readings.

[jeremiah]

Hello Roberto,

Substitute "aidios": "It seems to me that you are presenting a verse as evidence for a certain theological understanding of "aidios", whereas that verse is capable of various readings.

I'm intrigued, what are you getting at? The same can be said of the majority of what gets discussed on the whole forum.

[Paidion]

Substitute "aidios": "It seems to me that you are presenting a verse as evidence for a certain theological understanding of "aidios", whereas that verse is capable of various readings.

Roberto, please explicate. Or at least explain what you think my "certain theological understanding of 'aidios' " to be.

[Roberto]

Substitute "aidios": "It seems to me that you are presenting a verse as evidence for a certain theological understanding of "aidios", whereas that verse is capable of various readings.

Roberto, please explicate. Or at least explain what you think my "certain theological understanding of 'aidios' " to be.

You seem puzzled by the fact that aidios is used for a situation that ends at a specific time. But "until" is only one way to translate *eis*......it may not *be* being used for a situation that ends at a specific time in this verse.

[jriccitelli]

We share the consciousness of His love for us, which results in our love for Him, not out of fear for our well-being, but out of appreciation of His Excellency! (Paidion pg.4)

I could be just as flowery too, and I am in person, but Jesus spoke of hell and punishment as well as heaven to His disciples, and ‘they’ spoke the message to everyone, that’s how ‘we’ heard about it. Otherwise I may as well be sitting under some Brahman sage, or Hare Krishna if I didn’t want to hear about judgment and hell.

However, I know that SOME people become disciples while praying the prayer out of fear, IN SPITE OF the message— not because of it. For at that moment SOME people do submit themselves to Christ's authority. (Paidion pg.4)
… so that, even though they were appealed to on the basis of fear, they will nonetheless get a revelation from God Himself of His love, which thoroughly converts them… (Steve pg. 4)

Steve, all the scriptures the early Church had and relied upon were the Torah, the Torah is our foundation from Genesis 1 on. Jesus does not wipe away the God of Torah, Jesus explains and reveals the Father, nothing changes about us or God, again they rejected Him, and this time they crucified Him (thats 'really bad' news, if He wasn't also the Lamb of God). They crucified and hated Him ‘because’ He would ‘not stop condemning’ their sin, and reminding them of their guilt. The disciples witnessed this and were ‘well aware’ of the balance between believing Jesus, or rejecting Jesus. Just as some rejected the Prophets, and some embraced the false prophets who proclaimed “peace, peace, there will be peace”

‘Old Testament saints had very little knowledge about God, compared to ourselves..’ (Steve pg.4)

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 (after all, were not Paul’s letters generally written to correct ‘certain’ misunderstandings, and problems and heresy. Paul's revelation built upon what was ‘already’ laid down, or what was clear and evident already, like death). Judgment, death, guilt were very evident to everyone, because as Paul says; Christ was clearly - crucified – that in itself is the great question and condemnation of man. The Cross is the statement by which all other questions are judged. Like the people said after hearing Peter’s sermon (Acts 2), they were pierced to the heart (an interesting selection of words by Luke), the reaction is to the 'implications' of what a ‘crucified’ Messiah meant. The Jews were guilty, the Romans were guilty, and Man as a species was guilty.

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)

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 (see below)?

I am not saying that these five features would never be legitimate to include in our evangelizing, in some cases. I am only saying that they were apparently not a part of the central message of the gospel (since they could be omitted) (Steve pg.6)

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).

Our love for God is meaningless if we do not accept our real condition, condemnation and repent, anything else makes God a liar (1 John 1:10)
God’s love is demonstrated in the fact that He forgives, but that never excluded a payment for sin. Without the payment of sin the love could never be reached as sin had separated us, we had to first acknowledge our situation and guilt, repent and then accept His sacrifice as the bridge provided by God. You can love God all you want but it has to be according to His righteousness, not our righteousness as Romans 10 says (nor our dismissal of His mandate for righteousness, blood)

Remember no water off my back. I understand death to mean ‘death’: on earth and forever. God warns that death is death. Historical judgments and warnings are not washed away as temporal in my theology: God Judges and it stands. I am not misunderstanding your theology, I am debating it.