A Literal Hell?

Awww, and here I thought you asking for the opinions of the truly genius theologians on this board.

 

Since it's been asked, what do the other youths think about this? Can anyone give Biblical reasons to support your beliefs?

 

I definatly believe in a literal burning hell. I'm a Bible believer, and my standards and beliefs are based on the Bible. And God's Word says this about hell:

From those verses (and probably many more) I have no doubt that hell is real. That's not what I say, or what someone else says, this is what God said. I don't see how anyone saved could make an argument from the clear words of our Lord.
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB

 

I agree with that!!!

From those verses (and probably many more) I have no doubt that hell is real. That's not what I say, or what someone else says, this is what God said. I don't see how anyone saved could make an argument from the clear words of our Lord.
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB </font>[/QUOTE]

 

So is hell eternal? Are there different levels of hell? Is the Lake of Fire different from the place that the rich man in the Lazarus parable went to?

 

Yes hell is etenal, um I don't think there are diffrent levels of Hell, though I am quite sure many of us would like think there are for people such as Hitler. The place where the rich man went to very scary image of Hell, I'm pretty sure its the same... But I'm not sure, since it is a parable, it might be a different

 

There is NOTHING in the Bible that says that this account from our Lord is a parable! No, Jesus was telling it like it is.


mozier

 

Um... your probly right. I'll have to reread that passage, Its been a long time since I have

 

In a literal Hell? Probably most. Literally, Hell is the complete absence of God in your afterlife, and Heaven is being in the complete preence of God in the afterlife. They are literal places (or states, at least). They're not necessarily meant to be places that can be geographically located (since it's our spiritual existence that it's in regards to, not our physical existence).

As for Hell being a literal lake of fire, or whether that's symbolic for what it will be like, we simply don't know. If it's not a literal lake of fire, it will have the same affect on us as though it were literal. One could make thesame arguement for Heaven and streets of gold. Hey, we're gonna be with God. Does it really matter what material the street are gonna be made of? Probably not, since the streets are the last thing we'll be caring about. But Heaven's gonna have the same effect ono us as streets of gold, if that makes any sense.

Did I lose anyone with my pictorial there?

 

Actually, the rich man and Lazarus are referring to Hades (the place of the Dead, aka, Sheol). The Greek word that was translated "hell" there is "hades". Also, the rich man and lazarus is part of a parable that Jesus was telling. But to get back to the point, Hades and Gehenna are two different places. Hades is simply the grave, or the place where dead souls resided/slept/rested. Gehenna is Hell as we traditionally know it.

 

The Rich man and Lazarus story is a parable and thus an allegory. The descriptions of Revelation (lake of fire), even if they're symbolic, are meant to be non-allegorical. But of note is that the Lake of Fire and Hades are not the same thing. When we die, if we're not going to Heaven, we're going to the Lake of Fire, imo.

 

Disagree with you, Johnv! The operative word is CERTAIN. Jesus said there was a certain rich man and a certain beggar named Lazarus, not a rich man or some rich man and some beggar.

Literal Heaven.... Literal Hell, fire, torment, eternal damnation.

Diane

 

Yes we do. If the Bible says it, we can know. If it talks about an eternal fire, it's an eternal fire. If it makes literal since, seek no other since. In other words, if it is plainly said, take it as it is.

Eternal fire. Pretty clear there.

Yes, it really seems as though the rich man was sleeping and resting.
However I do realize what you are saying about Sheol and Gehenna.
But I also believe in a literal burning hell were lost sinners go, and I also believe that rich man is in hell now still in torments.
~Miss Abby
Proverbs 31:30 KJB

 

John, I nearly always agree with you but I have to go with the popular teaching that this wasn't a parable, but that Jesus was speaking about a real event that happened to two real people.

Otherwise, I agree with you that Hades and Hell are not necessarily the same thing.

There are five or six words that are related here but usually when we say "Hell", we mean Gehenna or Tartarus.

 

John, I nearly always agree with you but I have to go with the popular teaching that this wasn't a parable, but that Jesus was speaking about a real event that happened to two real people.
</font>[/QUOTE]I believe the "surface story" of all parables are true. That's what distinguishes them from fables - fables use a false/impossible story to teach a truth, parables use a true/possible story to teach a truth. Why would Jesus use a falsehood to teach a truth, when he could have used a truth to teach a truth?

 

Let me clarify. What I'm actually referring to is this: When we die, it is our spirits, not our physical bodies, that go to Heaven or Hell. Without our physical nature, physical flames would have no affect on us. Hence, one could make the assertion that the flames described aren't physical, but what is described is instead that Hell has the same affect on our spiritual selves that flames have on our physical selves. In other words, though not physical, still very real. So real? yes. Physical, not sure. That probably goes in the the basket with questions like "Can God make a rock so big he can't move it?"

In the verse you gave, teh emphasis is not on eternal fire, it's on vengeance. And as we know, vengeance is not ours, but His. You're not incorrect, but the emphasis isn't on fire, it's on vengeance. Not to split hairs or anything.

Hey, you're making fun of me now...
Seriously, the interesting thing about this story, whether it's literal or parable, is the justaposition of being in Abraham's bosom, and being out of it. Both relate to Hades/Sheol, so Abraham's bosom is not a desciption of Heaven (especially given that Abraham was not "taken up" in the OT). The implication is that, even in Sheol/Hades, there's a state of paradise and torment (Jesus told the thief on the cross he would be with him in paradise that same day, though Jesus went to Hades that same day), but that the paradise and torment in Hades is not equivalent to the NT Heaven and Hell as we know it. Hades was not salvation-based, like Heaven/Hell. Everyone went to Hades. If rich man / Lazarus story is a real event, then one might be able to imply that one's state in Hades/Sheol was works based.

I don't think anyone is saying differently.

 

The important point is not whether parables are real events or not. The important point of the parable is the moral or point Jesus was getting across.

Telling a ficticious story is not a falsehood. Some people imply that "telling a fable is telling a lie", and that's simply not the case. Telling a ficticious story is not a sin, and for Jesus to have told a ficticious story was not a sin. I think that whole arguement detracts from the purpose Jesus told parables in the first place.

 

I agree the moral point is the more important aspect of parables. However, *none* of the other parables Jesus spoke contained events that were impossible or ficticious. When he said a woman lost her coin and swept her house looking for it, or when birds ate the scattered seed, or when a man hired labourers for his vineyard, not only are those things literally possible, but I believed they also happened - despite the moral point of the story being the more important aspect of why Jesus told it. Why would this parable be any different? Why would Jesus use fiction, when he could have told a non-ficticious story instead to make the same moral point?