What's your view on Hell?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Esaias is slamming this thread with scripture.

There's lots more, including passages that are definitely difficult for my view. But they haven't been brought forth yet to be addressed. So the other side will need to hunt those verses out themselves, and bring them forward. I can't do ALL the work.

[1 God]

It takes a lot of work to debunk the Biblical theme of everlasting punishment.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

There's lots more, including passages that are definitely difficult for my view. But they haven't been brought forth yet to be addressed. So the other side will need to hunt those verses out themselves, and bring them forward. I can't do ALL the work.

[Tithesmeister]

Any discussion of hell should probably include these verses:

Mark 9:

[43] 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:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] 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:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] 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:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1 God

It takes a lot of work to debunk the Biblical theme of everlasting punishment.

thinks debunking a judeo-catholic pagan mythology is debunking the Bible...

ngmi

The Bible teaches the everlasting punishment of sinners, which is the second death. No passing Go, no 200 dollars.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Any discussion of hell should probably include these verses:

Mark 9:

[43] 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:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] 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:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] 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:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Probably.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Any discussion of hell should probably include these verses:

Mark 9:

[43] 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:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] 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:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] 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:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

The word "hell" there is not Hades in Greek but Gehenna, which points to the lake of fire where the unjust will be sent after being resurrected.

The passage is a hyperbole. Why? because you ain't going to cut your hand off, but the idea is to change your heart so you are fully determined to make radical decision if something is making you fall. You are not going to enter to eternal life with one eye, because healing is included, but the description is that it would be even better to enter with one eye than going to hell.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Who said "because I say so"?

Not you. Had other posts in mind.

Has this not been done? I believe it has. At least from our side. Sean/Renee/or whatever maybe not so much.

No really. But I wasn't thinking of you either.

Actually, Paul didn't say Paradise was in heaven. One person caught up to the third heaven, and another caught up to Paradise. Paul is referring to a common feature in both Jewish and Christian mysticism: the person caught up to other worlds and being given divine revelations (like the story of Enoch in Jewish intertestamental pseudepigrapha). He passes no judgment on such ecstatic experiences other than to basically say "cool and neat, that God blessed such persons with spiritual visions and adventures, but as for me I'm just an apostle suffering for the gospel."

Paul is talking about himself in third person. It is a man that "he knows" that saw great revelations, and then he, Paul, has great revelations to boast about, but because of the abundance of revelations.... The third person is a way to even humble himself more, but it is rhetoric. It is also talking about the same man, not two men (I know a man... And I know such man...how he was...).

Read it in context:

2 Corinthians 12:1-7 (NKJV) 1 It is doubtless not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord:
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. 5 Of such a one I will boast; yet of myself I will not boast, except in my infirmities. 6 For though I might desire to boast, I will not be a fool; for I will speak the truth. But I refrain, lest anyone should think of me above what he sees me to be or hears from me.
7 And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

.

So yes, it is the same man, and it is Paul, and he was caught up to Paradise in the third heaven in a vision.

Nobody has explained the contradictions inherent in a more literal interpretation of the story, though.

I did it, many times, I repeat myself also explaining to others. I explained the reason why the apparent contradiction between the OT and the NT.

It has already been stated: hades is the place of dead people. Nobody said hades doesn't exist. And Paradise was explained, not as a destination for departed souls, but as the place where eternal life is available. Jesus didn't say Lazarus went to Paradise. And thief was to be with Jesus in Paradise THAT DAY (not the next, or the coming Sunday).

I explained this too. Lazarus went to "Abraham Bosom" a metaphor for the side of Hades that was for the just. Paradise is in heaven, and became the destination of the saints after Jesus' death.

Regarding the "today" and moving the coma, I explained that too in details and the reasoning why the moving the coma doesn't match the text context. I also replied to the other explanation you did.

This is a misrepresentation. The SECOND DEATH is a cessation of existence. Physical death is a cessation of life. The problem is you seem to believe dying or ceasing to live means the person still lives just without the body (which introduces more problems). Which is not really a DEATH but just a change of location for the person. It not JUST the body that dies, but the PERSON.

Gotcha. So the "sleeping" of the soul is not a temporary cessation to exist. I didn't know that.

John 5:28-29 KJV
Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, [29] And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Where are all these people? IN THE GRAVES. But your position says the righteous are in Paradise/heaven when they are resurrected??? Jesus said the ones in the graves would hear His summons, not "their bodies will hear". This is an important distinction that I think you are overlooking.

That's a good point. But notice that those that are in the grave their ears are decomposed and not able to hear anyways. So this text has to be a truth communicated with a figure of speech. So, the ones in the grave hearing his voice refers to when God speaks the word commanding the resurrection to raise them all from the grave. It speaks of a miracle, like in Genesis: God speaks, things happen. Probably the reason for that figure of speech is for the rhetorical impact of reminding the hearers that one day God will call them to be accountable to what they did. It does not contradict the souls being conscious in Hades.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Esaias

thinks debunking a judeo-catholic pagan mythology is debunking the Bible...

ngmi

The Bible teaches the everlasting punishment of sinners, which is the second death. No passing Go, no 200 dollars.

How can it last forever if you can’t feel it or sense it?

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Any discussion of hell should probably include these verses:

Mark 9:

[43] 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:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] 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:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] 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:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Parable?