The first two verses are poetic descriptions of an eschatological belief that the righteous would be given eternal physical life in a restored paradise on earth while the unrighteous would be cast into Gehenna “in sight” of this “paradise” (Messianic Jerusalem).
In any case, all of these references are still about annihilation, not eternal torment.
Exactly. In the very same way that Matthew used the word, rather than as a literal reference to a wadi south of Jerusalem.
In other words, the “NT authors” did not use “those terms to mean anything different from what they meant in their mainstream historical and cultural context”–which was as an image of a place of punishment, not as a valley with a rubbish pile.
I believe that DtC is 100% correct on all counts.
A thoughtful consideration of the word “hell” as it’s rendered in the bible, complete with it’s correct historical and linguistic context renders the popular notion of hell unsupported in the bible.
For example, the KJV renders sheohl, “hell” 31 times, however it renders the same word sheohl , “grave” 31 times and 3 times “pit.” Further,** haides** is rendered “hell” 10 times.
Further, King James Version renders sheohl as “hell,”** “the grave,”** and “the pit”;** haides** is rendered both “hell” and**“grave”; geenna is also translated “hell.”**
Today’s English Version transliterates** haides as “Hades”** and also renders it as** “hell”** and** “the world of the dead.” But besides rendering “hell”** from haides it uses that same translation for geenna.
The Jerusalem Bible transliterates haides six times, but in other passages it translates it as “hell” and as** “the underworld.”** It also translates geenna as “hell,” as it does haides in two instances.
**Collier’s Encyclopedia **(1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says concerning “Hell”: “First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation"
highlights mine
Further, how is the word “hell” used in the bible?----specifically the times it is rendered from either haides or sheohl----
What is the condition of those in hell?
Ec 9:5,10* “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.”* (Note: “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB; “the grave,” KJ, Kx; “hell,” Dy; “the world of the dead,” TEV.)
Ps. 146:4* “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.”* (Note:“Thoughts,” KJ, 145:4 in Dy; “schemes,” JB; “plans,” RS, TEV.)
This indicates “hell” is non-sentient death.
Do the wicked go to hell?
Ps 9:17 “The wicked shall be turned into hell,* and all the nations that forget God.” (Note: “Hell,” 9:18 in Dy; “death,” TEV; “the place of death,” Kx; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.)
Do the upright go to hell?
Job 14:13 Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?”*
(God himself said that Job was “a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.”—Job 1:8.)** (Note: The grave,” KJ; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.)*
Acts 2:25-27* “David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell*, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” *
(The fact that God did not “leave” Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, does it not?)** (Note:* “Hell,” Dy; “death,” NE; “the place of death,” Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” AS, RS, JB, NW.)**
Does anyone ever get out of hell?
**Rev 20:13, 14 *“The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.”
(So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into the lake of fire.)** (Note:* “Hell,” Dy, Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” NE, AS, RS, JB, NW.)**
Further, do the wicked suffer eternal fiery torment, or simply eternal punishment?
Mt 25:46 “These shall go away into everlasting punishment but the righteous into life eternal. "
As noted by DtC,it refers to “lopping off,” or “pruning” (Greek, kolasin)
(**The Emphatic Diaglott **reads “cutting-off” instead of “punishment.” A footnote states: “Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;—hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.”)
2 Thess 1:9 reads:* “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.”*
** (Note: “Eternal ruin,” NAB, NE; “lost eternally,” JB; “condemn them to eternal punishment,” Kx; “eternal punishment in destruction,” Dy.)*
Simply stated, “hell” is the common grave. This is both linguisticly and contextually correct in the bible. When you die, you will go to the grave; to hell. The bible says, "The soul that sins shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:4, Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition) It also declares:* “The wages of sin is death.” * (Rom 6:23)
They experience death–punishment—,not torture. The scriptures supporting the notion that “hell” ----as used contextually by the words sheohl or haides/hades—is nothing more than non-sentient death in a grave is clear. Hell is simply the grave.
Part of the confusion comes from the various translations that not only use all 3 words----Sheohl/Haides/Gehenna— as interchangeable, but render them in different ways, (see above) apparently to meet a preconceived belief or set of beliefs. If the translations are stripped of those biases, and the words are set in their proper context*, the meaning of hell (sheohl/haides) becomes much more clear, as well as the distinction that gehenna has vis a vis sheohl/haides.
(*In 1901, the Americans producing the American Standard Version (1901) were in disagreement with their British counterarts and their use of Sheohl in the English Revised Version and their use of “pit”, “grave” and “hell”. The Americans transliterated sheohl in all 65 of its appearances. Both versions transliterated haides in the NT in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Geenna (English, “Gehenna”) is rendered “hell” throughout, as is the case with many other modern translations)
Gehenna, while sharing some of the qualities (metophorically) of haides/sheohl had some important distinctions, notably the quality of eternal, or permanent destruction or annihilation.
Simply put, you will get out of (the sheohl/haides) hell; either to salvation or to destruction. You were born, you sinned, you died. At some point, you will be resurrected to account for your life. (John 5:28,29 and many, many others)
OTOH, if you make it to (hell) gehenna, you won’t be going anywhere. (The good news is that you will be dead, destroyed, not rotating on a spit)
In either case, your condition at that time becomes permanent. You will either be rewarded with [eternal] life, or [eternal] destruction or annihilation. As noted by DtC, “eschatological belief that the righteous would be given eternal physical life in a restored paradise on earth while the unrighteous would be cast into Gehenna “in sight” of this “paradise”…”
And where do some of these people heading off into destruction (gehenna) come from? From Hell! From their graves.** John 5:28,29** says* "28 Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment. "*
(Also see Acts 24:14, Rev 20:13)
In my view, to come to an accurate understanding as to what “hell” is it is necessary to:
1)See the use of the word Sheohl and Haides rendered consistently througout the translation. With the proper use/translation it becomes the many times that thes words were used to connote the common grave. Look above; is it any wonder why “hell” is confusing when the 3 words are treated as the exact same, and even then translated entirely differently even within the same translation?
I would submit that there is a difference betwee then hell of sheohl/haides and the hell of genenna.
For the sake of brevity (hehe) I haven’t touched on Gehenna really. Mostly Sheohl/Haides. I would add that the scripture supporting this are many; in fact I haven’t touched the surface. The same thing applies to Gehenna and it’s use [contextually]. And so I would say that someone interested in this topic pick up their bible and read for themselves.
If there is a hell, I think it just froze over. :eek: D
Thanks.
LOL
It was clear you didn’t need my help, but I couldn’t help myself.
“Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3
So “eternal life” (and “eternal damnation”) might refer to a quality of life rather than a quantity of life.
There are many of us Christian Universalists who believe in judgement in the afterlife but don’t believe in literal everlasting torture. As a self plug I have a bunch of online books and articles on the subject at my own website: http://www.drewc.net
I would disagree. In the context of how Haides & Sheohl are/were used there is punishment involved----the punishment earned from being a sinner. (Rom 6:23 and many others) The wages sin pays is death.
Both Sheohl and haides are used in this context consistently. There is not a quality of permanence to being in Sheol/Hades. There are many verses that directly say those in Sheol/Hades will be resurected—to either a judgment of life or to punishment.
At some point even this hell of Sheol/Hades will be ended—emptied and destroyed. And so I do not find that Sheol/hades are permament, nor do I find [complelling] evidence that there is [sentient] torture going on there. They’re simply dead.
But while their status as sinners earned them death (in a grave) it doesn’t speak to their eternal hope or future. Jesus’s sacrifice canceled out the certain, permanent death we earned through Adam’s rebellion, and offered the hope to be “redeemed” from a hopeless future.
There are many scrpitures that not only show that we simply go to the grave (“hell”) when we die, but those same graves (hell/sheol/hades) are to be emptied. In those scrpitures the original words are Sheol & Hades.
But the bible speaks extensively about a judgement day. Jesus himself spoke of this. He made it abundantly clear that those judged adversely would be cast into gehenna. The symbolism here was not that there was to be eternal toture, but eternal punishment. This was the hell of Gehenna— a distinction made between the hell of Sheol/Hades (inhabited by those asleep in death due to sin, and waiting for judgement of life or death) and the hell of Gehenna (inhabited by those who are brought from hell/sheol/hades and judged adversely; and who suffer permament death or annihilation from which there is no hope or redemtion) Jesus always used Sheol/Hades without a permanent/eternal quaility, while Gehenna was “post judgement” and had a permanent/eternal quality.
And so I think it is neccesary to separate [correctly] the use of Sheol/Hades versus the use of Gehenna.
In the end, the distinctions are these:
Whether in Hell/Sheol, Hell/Hades or Hell/Gehenna you are dead. Non-sentient.
And so, whether in Hell/Sheol, Hell/Hades or Hell/Gehenna you are not being tortured in any way. Noboday gets tortured anywhere, anytime.
Those in Hell/Sheol or Hell/Hades are there because of endemic sin. Period. Period! The jury is out, so to speak, as to their “eternal soul/prospects.” Simply put, judgement has not been rendered.
Those in Hell/Gehenna are there because of adverse judgement. They have been weighed in the balance and have been judged based on their life. The jury is in. They go off into destruction------forever. I believe DtC noted (?) it is the fire that doesn’t get extinguished—the sentence, the punishment— not the “life” of the souls in gehenna. They are simply destroyed forever.
Thank you for that witness.
As a side note, many (most?) bible based threads at some point touch, directly or indirectly, on God’s quality of Love.
And we should.
However, His other cardinal attributes are Power, Justice and Wisdom.
Now I don’t think it is neccessary to refute the popular notion of an eternal burning hell with the [indirect] appeal of His attributes. I think a serious, interested person will look up the scriptures in question (there are many) and see what the original word (whether sheol,hades or gehenna) is and how it is used. I think there is compelling [direct] reasons to believe that endemic sin will earn you a trip to the sheol/hades hell variety, while “judgement day” (whatever it’s form) will earn you a trip to the gehenna hell variety.
But reasoning for a moment…
Taking the biggest scoundrels of recent memory…Amin, Pot, Stalin, Hussein, Hitler… Would a loving, just, wise God burn someone for eternity—for eternity—for 70 or 80 years of abject evil?
It is beyond our ability to put this into some perspective. It boggles the mind. If Hitler, for example, were sentenced to one trillion years of seering torture for every individual life he extinguished----all six million----served consectutively—would that be “just?”
Further, after serving those years (a number we cannot compute) he would, in relative terms, not have begun to serve his punishment.
I don’t think the notion of a burning eternal hell is consistent with the qualities ascribed to God in the bible.
You’re welcome 
*Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. *
This lesson from Jesus (not a parable) describes what someone goes through in hell. I agree with you that hell is not permanent, but that those there will be thrown into the lake of fire, where they will suffer forever and ever.
Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
See Luke 16:23
Yes, from the sin nature they inherited from Adam
I don’t agree. I believe the word kolasis has a very specific meaning, one of penal infliction, punishment and torture. While its root word does carry as one definition “to prune”, it also carries the definition “to chastise, correct, punishment” and “to cause to be punished”. There are perfectly fine words for death (thanatos), destruction (suntrimma), and destroy (kataluo).
I don’t expect these arguments will be convincing, and ultimately, this debate (at least in my eyes), is useless. Whether hell, hades, or gehenna are infinite or finite, it is no picnic and the alternative (heaven) is much more preferable. This is why I share the gospel with others.
So is it safe for me to assume that the idea of an eternal place comes from the conflation of sheol/gehenna with germanic Hel and Greek Hades?
Pretty much, though the exact evolution is hard to pin down. Dante and Milton had a lot to do with fleshing out the popular imagery.
No, the eternal aspect comes from whether the Bible teaches the immortality of the soul outside of God/Christ and what the Greek word “aionion” means- “eternal” or “aion-enduring”.
A little of column “A”, a little of column “B”.
You are right that the arguments are not convincing. And, I suspect you are aware of the fragility of the argument, resting so precariously on the backs of just a couple scriptures.
The basis for most people who subscribe to a burning eternal hell is Luke 16:23.
Let’s consider that account, in it’s full context.
Luke 16:19-31
*19 “But a certain man was rich, and he used to deck himself with purple and linen, enjoying himself from day to day with magnificence. 20 But a certain beggar named Lazarus used to be put at his gate, full of ulcers 21 and desiring to be filled with the things dropping from the table of the rich man. Yes, too, the dogs would come and lick his ulcers. 22 Now in course of time the beggar died and he was carried off by the angels to the bosom [position] of Abraham.
“Also, the rich man died and was buried. 23 And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in the bosom [position] with him. 24 So he called and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this blazing fire.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you received in full your good things in your lifetime, but Lazarus correspondingly the injurious things. Now, however, he is having comfort here but you are in anguish. 26 And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and YOU people, so that those wanting to go over from here to YOU people cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us.’ 27 Then he said, ‘In that event I ask you, father, to send him to the house of my father, 28 for I have five brothers, in order that he may give them a thorough witness, that they also should not get into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to these.’ 30 Then he said, ‘No, indeed, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’”*
In this particular account, the original word was “hades” (your bible may say “hell” or some other word) “Hades” appears in it’s original form 10 times in the NT I believe . As I mentioned earlier, “hell” is often used, whether the word originally was “hades”, “sheol”, or “gehenna.” Further, “Hades” is not consistently rendered “hell” but can be rendered “underworld”, “the world of the dead”, or simply “grave.”
Of the 10 times hades are found in the earliest manuscripts there is no mention of sentient awareness. In fact, in all but two cases in which the word Hades is used in the NT it is related to death, either in the verse itself or in the immediate context. Of the other 2, one is at Mt 16:18, where Jesus speaks of the gates of Hades (RS translates “the power of death”) not overpowering the “rock-mass” or congregation.
The other reference is towards Jesus himself, who is said to have entered ‘the gates of hades.’ At Acts 2:25-32, David is quoted as saying of Jesus, *"26 On this account my heart became cheerful and my tongue rejoiced greatly. Moreover, even my flesh will reside in hope; 27 because you will not leave my soul in Ha´des, neither will you allow your loyal one to see corruption. *
It is clear that Jesus himself was in Hades for a period of time. He was dead. Non-sentient. No suffering. No awareness. This is the same word in it’s original form; “hades.”
Is there a biblical basis to associate “Hades” with suffering? (outside of the account in Luke we’re about to delve into) No! Conciousness? No! Sentience? No!
Now you stated,
so we’ll approach this from that perspective, ok?
It is peculiar that you feel that this is not a parable, despite the rich imagery and clearly parabolic language. But if we accept this as non-parabolic and literal we must note (and presumably accept) the following:
• Lazarus was buried. **(verse 22) **
•We must accept that those in heaven can both see and speak with those suffering in hell. (verse 23)
• Everyone–everyone– going to heaven will be met by Abraham, and will physically reside on his chest. (verse 23)
• That a drop of fire is not evaporated by the fires of hades. (verse 24)
• That despite his torment, a drop of water would actually provide relief. (verse 24)
• We must accept that wealth and wealth alone will earn you a trip to hell; conversely poverty guarantees God’s favor. (verse 25)
Is this truly ‘what someone goes through in hell?’ Or is this just a parable?
Now we’ve considered the use of the word Hades, and in it’s historical context. (including a site that puts Jesus in Hades) We’ve also looked at these specific verses.
Let’s put them in context. Who was Jesus speaking to? Who was he speaking about?
In verse 1 (Luke 16:1) Jesus is said to be speaking with his disciples. It is well documented that there was great consternation among the Pharisees regarding Jesus and his followers.
Were they alone? Of course not. In verse 14-15 it says,
“14 Now the Pharisees, who were money lovers, were listening to all these things, and they began to sneer at him. 15 Consequently he said to them: “YOU are those who declare yourselves righteous before men, but God knows YOUR hearts; because what is lofty among men is a disgusting thing in God’s sight.”
Now read the whole account again, from verse 1 (or before) if you’d like. Does the context change for you when it is clear that Jesus is not only teaching his disciples a lesson via a parable, but within ear shot of the Pharasees who are described in this account as “money lovers?”
In light of the fuller context—the presence of the disciples and the Pharasees, and Jesus rebuke of their greed-----does the story take on a different meaning or context?
Absolutely!
Is this story a literal punchlist of those destined for hell?----or;----- both a lesson to his disciples about greed, humility (see verses 25-31) and compassion and a stinging rebuke to the Pharasees who were present and listening?
What does the account in it’s full context suggest?
Further, one must accept a burning hell in light of the many, many, many texts that indicate, directly and indirectly, that those early followers expected a non-sentient death, that culminated in a “resurrection” or “judgement”—which involved the emtying of the tombs/graves/hades/sheol.
I would suggest reading the account, in it’s entirety, and full context. Don’t take my word for it. Or you could take…
I disagree. I believe that when Jesus died, he descended into hell and led those souls who were waiting for him in paradise (Luke 23:43). I believe hell was originally split into two parts: hades (place of the damned) and paradise (place of the faithful, also known as Abraham’s bosom), separated by a great gulf (mentioned in Jesus’s lesson in Luke 16). Jesus descended and led captivity captive(Ephesians 4:8) out of paradise and up to heaven. I understand this is probably not a common interpretation, but I believe it is the correct interpretation.
I disagree. You referenced Ecclesiastes 9 for support, but these verses could refer to the end of man’s ambitions and plans on their death (just as the rich man who had much goods (Luke 12:16-21)).
Not at all. No other parables mention actual people (such as Lazarus). Parables are also usually identified as such (see the previous citation of Luke 12:16-21). I can see how this can be considered a parable, however.
Nonsense. The verse says Lazarus died. It does not state he was buried. It does state, however, that the rich man was buried.
Not heaven, paradise (aka Abraham’s bosom)
There is no reason to assume this. I have already given my reason for this in the previous section.
I disagree. This man was tormented, and was looking for any relief possible, even the possibility of a single drop of water, evidencing the torture that hell must be.
Not wealth and wealth alone, but a desire for wealth that causes one to be choked by the cares of this world so that they care nothing for God. In actuality, Christ is actually condemning the Pharisees not for their wealth, but because they “justify themselves before men” (Luke 16:15). I believe that God is not impressed with our works in comparison to His perfect son, and that we are saved by grace through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
It can have that meaning, and probably does. But a lesson need not only have one meaning.
I wouldn’t call it a punchlist. It does carry the meaning of your latter description, but it in addition carries information about hell. I am willing to take Jesus Christ at His word.
I have studied these verses, and I do not come away with that interpretation. I follow the hermeneutical principle that the Bible must be taken literally unless it absolutely cannot be taken literally.
In conclusion, as I stated above, if after death I learn that I was wrong, I will be relieved that those who are in hell will not be tormented forever. However, I am not willing to accept that based on my interpretation, and that drive will keep me witnessing to others so that they may be spared that outcome (whether it be death or annihilation.)
I’ve been following this discussion for a little while, and while I’m annoyed by Twin’s brazen implication that he’s going to heaven no-matter-what (while simlutaneously admitting that there’s a possibility that he is mistaken about his methods for discerning the nature of hell, which are presumably the same methods he’s used for discerning his sure path to heaven) I have to concede that he may have a small, logical point regarding the cognizance question.
This is in particular regarding the hades version of hell; that is, the try-before-you-buy part.
As far as I can tell, you (the ‘hell=death=insensible’ crowd) have been basing your arguments about the interpretations of the words translated as ‘hell’ on a lack of explicit mention of torture in the verses surrounding them. But, a lack of explicit mention of something happening does not actually imply that it doesn’t happen; it just means that nobody’s mentioned it yet. I mean if I mention that I have a car 100 times, and only one of those times do I mention that it’s got an automatic transmission, you can’t extrapolate that it’s a standard based on the 99 times I didn’t mention that it was an automatic.
I mean, we have at least one explicit statement that ‘bad’ people will be tortured in hades (the rich man/lazarus/Abraham parable) and at least one explicit statement that *somebody[/y] will be tortured eternally in Gehenna (albeit it doesn’t mention Joe average; just the devil and/or the beast & false prophet). These seem like counterexamples to your claims that neither of those places will involve sentient torture. Don’t those counterexamples need to be taken into account?
Regarding the arguments you’ve already brought forth against the ‘parable’ case, the presence of numerous references to death surrounding hades doesn’t seem surprising. I mean, everybody dies. If hades is the holding bin for people between death and judgement, then you clearly have to be dead to get there. But, did the jews of the time believe in ghosts? I thought that that was the big deal with the three days before Jesus’s ressurection; that was long enough for his spirit to have wandered off. Couldn’t a person be dead and in the grave, simultanously with their spirit being somewhere else and sentient (and perhaps being tortured)? Is there compelling evidence to think that they didn’t hold this view? If they didn’t, wouldn’t any parable Jesus made that implied that people were having conversations after dying sound like total nonsense to his audience?
For someone with a “literal” bent, I am perplexed with some of your answers. Perplexed because some of your sites simply don’t say what you imply.
For example, does Luke 23:43 say, “Jesus died, he descended into hell and led those souls who were waiting for him in paradise?” or anything close to that? In fact, Luke 23:43 says this:
43 And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise.”
Is this not the account of the repentent sinner who was executed next to Jesus and who had shown both humility and repentence? Isn’t this Jesus’s response to this man?
In what way should we infer your comment, “Jesus died, he descended into hell and led those souls who were waiting for him in paradise” from these words? We are required to impute both meaning and words that both the author and Jesus didn’t say!
Further, is there any text, real or implied, at Luke 16:23 that states that there is a division within hades for both the righteous, and unrighteous? In fact, the words “afar off” imply Abraham is in the heavens rather than in hades [locally]. In any event, there is nothing in these texts to support your belief that “hell was originally split into two parts: hades (place of the damned) and paradise (place of the faithful, also known as Abraham’s bosom), separated by a great gulf.” With all due [sincere] respect, it just doesn’t say that.
Do the words “afar off”—and just those 2 words?!— imply that hell was originally split into 2 parts…? Further, are there any other scrpitures in the 800,000 word bible that support something as significant as this? Would you hang your faith on the 2 words “afar off?”
I referenced Ec 9 as it speaks to Solomon’s view as to the status of the dead. He’s pretty specific, right? How in the world could you ascribe symbolic or parabolic qualities to these verses while insisting the account at Luke 16 is literal? (To wit, you are not—you are clearly picking and choosing within this account which is symbolic and which is literal)
It’s absolutely clear to me how you can see how other people might see it as a parable, as you treat it as one yourself [partially]. I don’t believe you are being disengenuous, but it appears to me that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth.
In the same account, you ascibe both literal and figurative (parbolic) qualities. It’s simply inconsistent.
We agree! I cited scrpiture and verse, and accidently typed that Lazarus was buried instead of the rich man. Thanks for pointing it out, although it seems evident that it was a typo, and I agree, clearly nonsense.
And what was your reason? That Abraham’s bosom is not literal!!
Tell me clearly;
Are those going to heaven going to reside on Abraham’s literal chest?
If that is not literal, is it not figurative and parabolic?
If it is not literal, why is it more believable that Lazarus will be on fire for eternity than us getting comfy with Abraham?
Why is it not inconsistent on your part to insist that this is not a parable while ascribing some parabolic qualities to the account?
How is it not inconsistent to insist that Abraham’s bosom is symbolic, while Lazarus’s condition is not?
Lastly, do you know of any other parables of Jesus’s where he clearly mixed both figurative and literal qualities in such a haphazrd and confusing way?
So, this part is literal? If so, can a spirit person be burned? Is it his literal flesh being burned? More importantly, is it reasonable that your-run-of-the-mill greedy person will burn in agony for trillions of trillions of trillions of years? Is that consistent with God as described to you in the bible?
Bingo! From the context, starting with verse 1, this is clearly a lesson to his disciples and a stinging rebuke to the greedy Pharasees, both of which were present. It is a lesson of compassion, humility, and greed. The disciples were to learn from the example of the Pharasees. The Pharasees were being publicly reproved in a parable. It was direct, and less than subtle. Everyone got the message.
You continue to confuse me, frankly. The most literal, compelling, explanation for this account is just what is desribed: Jesus had an occasion to lecture/teach his followers. They were in close proximity with the Jewish leaders who both knew and reviled Jesus. Jesus used the occasion to accomplish 2 things: to teach his disciples a lesson, and to rebuke the Pharasses.
And now you have ackowedged twice that "It does carry the meaning of your [my] latter description. " It is clearly a parable—a means of teaching that lesson!
Yet, you insist it is a literal account of what happens when we die, and seem to blithely dismiss Abraham’s bosom as symbolic of something else (paradise) while insisting no such symbolism exists as to Lazarus. Can you see why I’m confused?
With all due respect, I do not think you do. For example you ascribe symbolic qualities to Abraham’s bosom, while ignoring the symbolic references to Lazarus.
There is also nothing literal to support a division of hades between the good and bad—in fact there is no texts to my knowelege that support your assertion, without ascribing figurative qualities. AFAICT, the substance to this belief are the 2 words “afar off.”
Further, your use of Luke 23:43, or Luke 16:23 show that you attach figurative or symbolic meaning to these accounts that the texts clearly do not say in any way! in fact they don’y imply it any way!
Is this not right?
I appreciate your witnessing, and sincerity. However I submit that after death you will not be relieved. You will be dead. Unconcious.
At some point, you will be called to account for yourself. You will either reach this paradise of which you speak, or you will reach Gehenna. In the former, you may experience some relief. In the latter, you will experience nothing.
That’s not what we’re basing it on at all. We’re basing on what is known about the specific meanings of the words commonly translated as “hell” and what those words meant in relation to 1st century Jewish eschatological and afterlife beliefs. The lack of explicit mention of eternal torture is not the core of our argument and has been pointed out merely as a rebuttal to those who have attempted to cite certain passages as being supportive of an eternal hell concept.
It doesn’t sound like you’ve read this thread very carefully. The rich man and Lazarus were separated in different parts of Sheol. Sheol was routinely translated into Greek as Hades. While there was some belief in the Hellenistic period that Sheol was divided into good parts and bad parts, it was still only temporary. The belief was that all people would be resurrected from Sheol and judged and that the bad people would be annihilated in Gehenna.
For everyone else, Revelation says four times that the Lake of fire is the “2nd death.”
They already have been taken into account. Read the thread.
Like I’ve said several times, beliefs about Sheol/Hades eventually began to include some concepts of temporary punishment and reward. Temporary, not eternal.