I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

[DHK]

The reference is to Ghenna. The worms there are not immortal EVEN though bodies and garbage was tossed there for century after century - having lots of food DID NOT result in "an immortal worm". Your argument seems to be that eternal-fuel gives rise to immortal worms. Your argument is flawed.

The symbol Christ uses is as stated - that the "consumer" the "destroyer" the WORM - is not stopped by death. Those who spin this as "worms live forever if their food source is immortal or eternal" have missed the point entirely. In Ghenna the "destroyer" is the worm eating through the dead corpses and garbage. What part of that is hard to get?
Bob

It seems as if you want to discount the metaphorical language used by Christ in order to insert your own preconceived ideas, iin spite of the plain teaching of Christ on this subject. Even when Christ uses the term, "ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," (Mat.25:41), you have to do mental gymnastics to say that everlasting fire does not mean everlasting fire--eseentially that Christ lies.
When Christ uses metaphors you accept it in one plaace but not in another.
When Christ says "I am the door," you realize that he is not speaking of a wooden entrance such as the one to your house. You realize that he didn't look physically like a door, even though he said "I am the door." He was using a metaphor.

But it seems that you won't concede that when he uses a metaphor "the worm dieth not," that it is a metaphor, and not an actual worm.
The worm referred to is one's conscious. As worms do, a guilty conscious eats and gnaws at a person until he makes thngs right. So it will be in Hell or ultimately in the Lake of Fire, where the worm will never die; that is where that person's conscious will never die. His guilty conscious of having rejected Christ will eat and gnaw at him for all eternity. He will regret it for the rest of eternity. "The worm dieth not."

 

[BobRyan]

It seems as if you want to discount the metaphorical language used by Christ in order to insert your own preconceived ideas, iin spite of the plain teaching of Christ on this subject. Even when Christ uses the term, "ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels," (Mat.25:41), you have to do mental gymnastics to say that everlasting fire does not mean everlasting fire--eseentially that Christ lies.

Wrong. I simply point that the eternal fire mentioned in Matt 25 by Christ is the SAME eternal fire mentioned by God in Jude - where we see that the perfect example of DESTRUCTION by that eternal fire is the city of Sodom.

In other words I keep pointing out the inconvenient details others would have us avoid.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But it seems that you won't concede that when he uses a metaphor "the worm dieth not," that it is a metaphor, and not an actual worm.

On the contrary - I insist on seeing it as a symbol for hell and not a real worm. I am arguing that the emphasis of Christ is not on "immortal fuel in Ghenna" but on the destroying worm that does not stop - does not die out.

Those who insist on bending this around to immortal food so they can wrench from the text 'souls that dieth not" are the ones abusing the text -- not me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Wrong. I simply point that the eternal fire mentioned in Matt 25 by Christ is the SAME eternal fire mentioned by God in Jude - where we see that the perfect example of DESTRUCTION by that eternal fire is the city of Sodom.

In other words I keep pointing out the inconvenient details others would have us avoid.

In Christ,

Bob

No, I won't go to Jude, until we discuss Jude. Was Jesus lying when he was referring to eternal fire in Mat.25:41? His audience had no knowledge of the book of Jude. It hadn't been written yet. What did his disciples believe he was talking about when he spoke of "eternal fire?" If the eternal does not mean eternal when it describes fire then what does it mean. Use the context of Mat.25 to answer the question. It is not set in the context of Jude.

 

[bound]

It is kinda funny that you call history - "Liberal" as if it was a doctrinal theological position. In the dark ages that is exactly how history was "edited' to reflect the theological bent of the RC hierarchy and what historic facts they would "allow". But after the world stepped out of the dark ages - we stopped doing that.

Grace and Peace BobRyan,

In our day, it is a widely held view by 'real' scholars that the science of history is in total disarray. Like modern philosophy, it continues to be dominated by intrinsicists and subjectivists. I would posit that since the 1960's to the present, liberal subjectivists have held positions of influence where their context of premises and values have acted as a distorting agent that has allowed the facts of history to be molded into any shape whatsoever. In the intrinsicist approach, self-effacement is promised as the means to experiencing a value that no longer exists! Either way, history has no objective value in much of what passes as popular works these days.

No - I am suggesting that BECAUSE Bokenkotter is a WELL RECOGNIZED historian and some obscure backwater neighbor of BobRyan - that this is NOT simply a dark-corner reference. It is historic fact that is out there in public AND I am suggesting that this is not a anti-catholic historian slamming the RCC with some kind of anti-RCC agenda.

Bokenkotter, as a liberal, is largely a secular academic who has spent much of his life dismantling Christianity one brick at a time. I don't know what you mean by 'well recognized' but my guess is that you equate book sells with accuracy.

If such is your measure of accuracy where does Dan Brown fit into your worldview?

Surely you admit to the obvious here - which is that I could go to my OWN historians quote them as bashing the RCC all day long! By using YOUR own guys - I am showing a level of objectivity which is seldom seen even in many Christian contexts.

There are two kinds of historians. Those with an agenda and those without. Regardless if one labels himself 'Catholic' or 'Adventist' doesn't change that fact that you are exercising selectivity in your choices here. I don't believe that Bokenkotter, a known liberal academic, represents an objective grasp of history, Catholic, Christian or what-have-you. To suggest that he represents an objective view only illustrates the lengths you're willing to go to lend support to your own agenda.

Again - you present historic fact as if it can be "spun" to meet a conservative Catholic agenda. Read the preface to Bokenkotter's book - in there he admits to criticism that he has deliberately glossed over the darker deeds fo the RCC during the dark ages. He excuses himself by stating that this is only a short volume and space dictated that he not go into so much detail about the misdeeds of the RCC.

If you don't think the evidence of history can be reinterpreted through one's own premises and values you are quite naive. My guess is that you are not so naive as this and merely desire to deflect deeper enquiry into your sources.
You say "but I BELIEVE" -- your continued "devotion" when it comes to things like ignoring historic fact "believing to the contrary" is noted. You seem to argue that "had you looked into the facts" you surely believe and have full faith that you would have found a way to spin it around. I have no doubt of that sir.

It is wise for you to use rhetoric in order to dismiss view which call your own into question but such methods lend no more credence to your position that Hell is annihilation.

Regardless Peace.

 

[John of Japan]

I can give you my own sources - scholars that agree with me... but why not send you directly to the source instead of reading it all 3rd hand?

Are you arguing that only ECF's can "know that Greek pagan myths includes stories about the torments of Tartarus"????

Again I would ask - are you simply playing games here or discussing the facts?

In Christ,

Bob

And I answer--I do not "play games" with Scripture. I was debating the facts of Scripture honestly and openly to the best of my ability until you started quoting from such viciously wicked sources, which are opposed to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now I am appalled that you actually think such sources to be authoritative for this discussion, repelled by your methodology, disgusted by your complete lack of discernment, and saddened by your lack of repentance for your promotion of evil. I have no desire to interact with you further on any level.

"And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat, Shouldest thou help the ungodly, and love them that hate the LORD? therefore is wrath upon thee from before the LORD" (2 Chron. 19:2).

 

[DQuixote]

Now I am appalled that you actually think such sources to be authoritative for this discussion, repelled by your methodology, disgusted by your complete lack of discernment, and saddened by your lack of repentance for your promotion of evil. I have no desire to interact with you further on any level.

.......And the people said, AMEN!!

.......Case Closed!!

.......Blessed be the Name of the Lord!!

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
John said
Prove that Hell as eternal punishment comes from pagan sources. Quote me a pagan who taught that way and influenced the Jews--to prove this you'll have to show a Jewish source that admits this influence. I will await eagerly (and with great scepticism) the results of your search for such a source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John of Japan
I asked for proof of the doctrine coming from pagan sources, not for proof from pagan sources.

Apparently that WAS a "game" where you ASK to have a pagan quoted to PROVE their view of hell was that of the tormenting kind used by the RCC in the dark ages -- then when the pagans were quoted - you and others could whine about it.

Pretty funny game if you ask me.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
It is kinda funny that you call history - "Liberal" as if it was a doctrinal theological position. In the dark ages that is exactly how history was "edited' to reflect the theological bent of the RC hierarchy and what historic facts they would "allow". But after the world stepped out of the dark ages - we stopped doing that.

Bound
Grace and Peace BobRyan,

In our day, it is a widely held view by 'real' scholars that the science of history is in total disarray. Like modern philosophy, it continues to be dominated by intrinsicists and subjectivists. I would posit that since the 1960's to the present, liberal subjectivists have held positions of influence where their context of premises and values have acted as a distorting agent that has allowed the facts of history to be molded into any shape whatsoever. In the intrinsicist approach, self-effacement is promised as the means to experiencing a value that no longer exists! Either way, history has no objective value in much of what passes as popular works these days.

The problem with that is that you are upholding the same censorship practrices of the RCC in the dark ages. ALLOWING some facts of history and disallowing others by imputing philosophic motives to even your OWN historians if they "admit to too much".

What does that say for you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Surely you admit to the obvious here - which is that I could go to my OWN historians quote them as bashing the RCC all day long! By using YOUR own guys - I am showing a level of objectivity which is seldom seen even in many Christian contexts.

Bound
There are two kinds of historians. Those with an agenda and those without. Regardless if one labels himself 'Catholic' or 'Adventist' doesn't change that fact that you are exercising selectivity in your choices here. I don't believe that Bokenkotter, a known liberal academic, represents an objective grasp of history, Catholic, Christian or what-have-you. To suggest that he represents an objective view only illustrates the lengths you're willing to go to lend support to your own agenda.

I can certainly appreciate your devotion to that belief. But I stand by my position that history is NOT a matter of what you prefer to believe.

The facts highligted by Bokenkotter remain. The fact that you oppose BOTH Catholic AND non Catholic historians in this matter is "instructive" but also attests to the depth of your devotion.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

No, I won't go to Jude, until we discuss Jude. Was Jesus lying when he was referring to eternal fire in Mat.25:41?

Obviously not. He was telling the truth and consistently using the term in Matt 25 JUST as God would continue to use that SAME term in Jude to show that ETERNAL FIRE is best illustrated with Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction "exhibited" as the perfect EXAMPLE.

No wonder you need to avoid it.

Matt 25 does not give us the DEPTH of insight by saying "For example the eternally burning sun shining on the earth day after day is exhibited as a perfect example of SUSTAINING LIFE through eternal burning as is done in the eternal fire prepared for the devil". But Jude DOES go that depth of detail SHOWING us a PERFECT example of eternal fire.

Case closed. (to quote a recent post)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[John of Japan]

Apparently that WAS a "game" where you ASK to have a pagan quoted to PROVE their view of hell was that of the tormenting kind used by the RCC in the dark ages -- then when the pagans were quoted - you and others could whine about it.

Pretty funny game if you ask me.

In Christ,

Bob

I can't help it, after signing off on this whole thing I simply must answer this absolutely ridiculous statement. You actually thought I meant a present day pagan when we were talking about the source of the doctrine of Hell in the development of Christianity??? :BangHead:

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

The smoke of their torment ascendeth forever and ever.

If they are completely anihilated as some would think, why are they still smoking?

Case reclosed.

 

[BobRyan]

I can't help it, after signing off on this whole thing I simply must answer this absolutely ridiculous statement. You actually thought I meant a present day pagan when we were talking about the source of the doctrine of Hell in the development of Christianity??? :BangHead:

I gave you the reference for the Greek Tartarus - -SURELY you don't think the Greeks did that YESTERDAY do you?? (Hence I can tell you are just gaming this topic now).

I have given you pagan confession to their own use of the term. I have given you VERY OLD pagan examples from Greek I have given you RC confession about paganism coming into the church.

ALL of this you simply "ignore" the way you ignore Jude and Matt 10:28 "DESTROY" as I point out your OWN insert of "Anhihilate" into the discussion the instant you see "DESTROY" written IN the text!

Each time you are confronted with an inconvenient fact of history or scripture - you respond by gaming the point, misdirecting etc.

How consistent of you sir.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The smoke of their torment ascendeth forever and ever.

If they are completely anihilated as some would think, why are they still smoking?

Case reclosed.

Well done - lets look at Rev 14:10 where we see the smoke of their torment ascending up forever.

Notice that they are "IN THE PRESENCE of the LAMB AND of His holy ones" while they are in that torment? That means as saints you and I will be right there to witness every moment of our loved one's agony.

And we will be VERY thankful that As Christ said in Matt 10:28 they are "DESTROYED both BODY AND soul" in that time instead of being turned into "immortal fuel".

We will be VERY thankful that JUST as Sodom is not still burning today after IT underwent the punishment of eternal fire so THEY TOO will simply be destroyed in that fire.

Instead of "wishing for more" you will be thankful to have it ended.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

no go, Bob.

In the story that many want to claim is just a parable, the rich man was in hell, tormented while Lazarus was comforted in Abraham's bosom.

If Abraham could hear the torments that the rich man was suffering, Lazarus could hear him as well... yet the Word says Lazarus was not sad or grieving, he was comforted... as we who are in Christ will be regardless of those we loved in this life who are suffering in the lake of fire.

Also, you seem to be mis-interpreting Revelation 14:10, which says:

KJV Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Nowhere can I see that man who was redeemed by Christ is seeing his loved ones tormented. It is Christ and His holy angels who witness the smoke of the torment in this verse... not the Child of God.

 

[DHK]

No wonder you need to avoid it.

I don't avoid the book of Jude, neither do I have need to go to it to prove my point. Scripture taken out of context becomes a pretext, only to justify your own twisted position. Again, the Book of Jude has nothing to do with what Christ was teaching his disciples in Matthew chapter 25. Why do you insist on perverting the Word of God?

Matt 25 does not give us the DEPTH of insight by saying "For example the eternally burning sun shining on the earth day after day is exhibited as a perfect example of SUSTAINING LIFE through eternal burning as is done in the eternal fire prepared for the devil". But Jude DOES go that depth of detail SHOWING us a PERFECT example of eternal fire.

Case closed. (to quote a recent post)
Bob

The only case that is closed is our ability to see your inability to look at God's word objectively, and see the plain sense of the definition of very simple words. What part of the word "eternal" do you not understand?
You go to great lengths trying to redefine a word that needs no redefining. Will you also redefine it when it is used as an adjective to describe the eternal Godhead? Or is not God "eternal" anymore in your theology? Words have meanings, and you are denying this fact. Another synonym that our Lord uses is "forever and ever." Yet you want to change this meaning also and tell us that it does not mean eternal either. This really is quite amazing.

If the "eternal fire" is not eternal (as God is eternal or as eternal life is eternal), then Chriist was lying when he spoke of eternal fire? Is Christ a liar? Is this the implication that you are leaving us with? What other conclusion could his first century listeners come to Bob?

 

[convicted1]

Luke 16 is a parable about all the saints sitting in Abraham's lap and the wicked praying to Abraham asking him to authorize the resurrection of one of the dead saints to speak to the living and warn them...

Christ said in his own summary of this parable that it was intended to teach the point that we must accept the writings of Moses or we will ultimately reject the Words of Christ.

(Read Luk 16 it is all there). But of course nobody pays attention to what Christ said the parable was meant to teach - everyone is too busy imagining that all the saints really are sitting in Abraham's lap.

Let's use exegesis in Luke 16 to "let the bible speak" for itself -- instead.

In Christ,

Bob

Dear BobRyan,

I have to beg to differ with you in regards to Lazarus and the Rich man being a parable. One of the people He is talking about has a name. As far as I can remember, He never mentioned any names when he told His disciples a parable. I believe that Luke chapter 16 actually happened, and was not a parable. I believe the rich man is still in torment, and Lazarus is still resting in Father Abraham's bosum. I heard somewhere on here that some scholars believe that the rich young ruler who walked away from Jesus was the rich man that Jesus told His disciples. I don't know if they are the same, but it is never mentioned in His word that the rich young ruler ever came back to Him. Like someone posted earlier, Where the worm dieth not, and the smoke of the torment will ascend up forever. I believe that Heaven and the lake of fire are forever. Take care and may God bless us all!!

 

[mnw]

Bob, what is your understanding of the location of the righteous and the wicked in this story? By the way, I do not believe it is a parable but an actual event.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, what is your understanding of the location of the righteous and the wicked in this story? By the way, I do not believe it is a parable but an actual event.

Christ gave his own summry of the parable in Luke 16 saying that those who reject the scripture given by God through Moses would also reject the NT scripture and in some ways even Christ Himself "risen from the dead".

However you make a good point in saying that you take the parable literally since I think the Jewish leaders might have agreed with you in thinking that all the dead saints are literally sitting in Abraham's lap, that Abraham is the sovereign diety in heaven whose decision determines who may be resurrected and who may not be resurrected and that the dead in hell are in direct communication with Abraham with no appeal made to God but rather Abraham for getting help sent to the living from the dead. It certainly makes a great case for praying to the dead and asking them for favors.

In Christ,

Bob