Is hell eternal?

originally posted by BobRyan

Man's wisdom is foolishness with God... as your quote above has shown.

I will speak to you in the Word's of the Lord Jesus Christ...

'Except ye also repent, ye will likewise perish'.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

 

Way of Life Encyclopedia to the Bible

 

Not sure how this helps the position you seem to be advocating for. I assume that we all agree that Mary has died physically. I also assume that she is among those who will see eternal life with God. So, she is not among those who will, on my view of things, ultimately be consumed after their resurrection. Only the unredeemed will be consumed, and that event lies in the future. </font>[/QUOTE]If, Mary, for example, is now living, then her spirit is that part of her which is alive. This is what you previously denied. What is death? Death is the separation of the spirit from the body. The reason Catholics pray to Mary is the fact that they know that "she", that is her "spirit" lives on in heaven. Her body lies dead in some grave. It will lie there until the resurrection, for Mary herself is dead. Thus when Catholics pray they pray to the spirit of Mary, as they do to all the saints in heaven. The spirits of the saints are in heaven are they not? Of course they are!
What is death? Death is separation of the spirit from the body. You have just about admitted that in this last post.

That being so, why is it so hard to believe (other than an obstinancy not to, or a repulsion to think that God would not) send a person (their spirit) to an eternal Hell to live there forever--separated from God forever. As the saved will await the resurrection of the just, so the unsaved will await the resurrection of the unjust. The Bible teaches two resurrections? For what purpose? If the spirit is already annihilated in the flames of hell why would the body be raised thousands of years later--for what purpose??
DHK

 

Just in case, this is intended as a serious contribution (and I suspect it is not), I will point out the obvious - these texts do not describe God as being consumed, as contrasted with texts that describe the wicked as being consumed. Instead the above texts describe the property of God acting on other entities and bringing about their consumption.

Forgive me if I am responding soberly to a post that was intended as jest (i.e. with the at the end) </font>[/QUOTE]the point is that there is a no show that a consuming fire implies "non-existence". every person who has ever lived will be resurrected and put back together, and then face judgment no matter if they went up in a puff of smoke or not. there is no such thing as a "total" consume. the word does not even carry that element in the definition.

 

DHK wrote:
"If, Mary, for example, is now living, then her spirit is that part of her which is alive. This is what you previously denied. What is death? Death is the separation of the spirit from the body. The reason Catholics pray to Mary is the fact that they know that "she", that is her "spirit" lives on in heaven. Her body lies dead in some grave. It will lie there until the resurrection, for Mary herself is dead. Thus when Catholics pray they pray to the spirit of Mary, as they do to all the saints in heaven. The spirits of the saints are in heaven are they not? Of course they are!"


per catholic catechism:

"964 Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";502 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:


Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."503
965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."504 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."505

. . . also in her Assumption


966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."506 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.507
. . . she is our Mother in the order of grace"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

 

I see your quote of Jude 7. But I don't see that your comment applies to Jude 7 at all.

What did I miss?

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]perhaps you are of the persuasion that the walls of the actual cities are in everlasting torment? or can we agree that the people who committed the acts that lived in these cities are the ones who are in everlasting fire?

 

Lets take a look at Matt 10 and "See" if the concept of "destroy the body" just means "LIVING forever but outside of Christ".

The first point we notice is that mankind IN THIS LIFE CAN destroy the body!! In fact the argument is made that while they CAN destroy the body they can not ALSO destroy the soul!!

Obviously IN this life the wicked do not take the ever-living-bodies of the saints "away from God" and call that "destroying the body".

In fact -- DESTROY the body really DOES mean DESTROY because they REALLY do it!!

So Exegesis demands that the concept for DESTROY the body in that future hell fire is just as REAL
as the DESTROY the BODY that we can SEE being done to the saints IN THIS LIFE!

And that locks this whole thing in beyond obfuscation, beyond turning on its head, beyond any kind of twist at all.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]unfortunately, for your sake of the argument, destroy does not equal annihilate. destroy in hell does not imply non-existence, it means no meaningful life, no joy, no relief from pain, etc.

if, in this life, someone says "that person destroyed my life" - does that mean they do not exist - or rather, that life does not exist for them as they once knew it, and that their life is ruined?

if someone's house is destroyed in a fire, does that mean every tiny particle is consumed by fire? or rather, that the house is no longer an inhabitable unit?

if my body is destroyed, whether by fire or chopped up and fed to the sharks, my body dies = destroyed - but, I live on into eternity. at some point I will be resurrected and given an incorruptable body for this corruptable one and continue to live eternally with God. if my body is destroyed/dead in this life and I do not have Christ, then when that body is raised from the dead, it will continue in destruction by being tormented forever in hell. can you not see that eternal torment is to be destroyed?

[ February 06, 2006, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: eloidalmanutha ]

 

Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible


Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

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:

Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

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 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

Way of Life Encyclopedia to the Bible </font>[/QUOTE]Even if this is not a parable, there is no indication that the torment of the rich man continues forever. This thread, as I understood it, is about the eternality of Hell, not about whether it exists or not (Bob, are you arguing that the unredeemed are destroyed without some limited period of time in hell?). This text does not teach a hell of infinite duration. If one is going to claim that other texts deal with the eternality of hell, then by all means, go nuts - deal with those other texts (however, we have been "down that road" already and it seems to me that the case for an eternal Hell is pretty weak).

 

This material presumes that certain points have been established, when in fact those points have been shown to be not established (for a variety of reasons. Furthermore, what Catholics believe has nothing to do with the position that I am advocating for. The case that "death is the separation of the spirit from the body was, in my view, shown to be insubstantial. If it is true, it has not been shown to be true in this thread. Where, in this thread, has anyone made a case for "death=separation", that has not been shown to be flawed? Claims like "Of course they are" in respect to the issue of whether the spirits of the saints are in heaven are clear question-beggars - no one has established this, so it cannot be claimed.

I believe that I have consistently denied the existence of an immaterial spirit or soul. I most certainly have never claimed that "Death is separation of the spirit from the body", as you suggest I almost did. Perhaps you are confusing me with Bob? Consequenty, one cannot attribute a belief in a spirit to me, and then critique my position. That would be a strawman. My whole "theory" is that human persons are wholistic beings, not decomposable into parts. So I have never claimed belief in an immaterial spirit.

I hope to get back to you on the "2 resurrections" issue.

Finally, if it is not already clear to any who are reading my posts carefully, I have spent very little time advocating for my specific belief in regard to this matter. I have focussed on pointing out what I believe are flaws in the "eternal torment" position as presented in this thread. If time permits, I hope to make a case for my position and not just focus on the problems of the "eternal torment" position. Then, perhaps, the flaws in my arguments can be pointed out.

 

What a great quote! Wouldn't it be neat if the Bible said it?!!

 

I see your quote of Jude 7. But I don't see that your comment applies to Jude 7 at all.

What did I miss?

</font>[/QUOTE]

Nothing in Jude 7 about "torment".

Nothing in the Genesis account about the city NOT being destroyed and fire NOT coming down on the actual city. Rather we are told that fire DID come down on the city ITSELF (both body and soul "destroyed" in hell fire -- in this case both city and people "destroyed").

Destroy - means that not only is it killed but then the remains are "destroyed"!

Check it out - Sodom and Gomorrah - literally killed - literally destroyed.

2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;

And of course that is "obvious" but when defending tradition the whole point is to circumvent the "obvious".

But more devastatingly the fact of "eternal fire" that "destroyed" those cities also shows that while the source may be from the eternal God the result is not that "the city SURVIVES for eternity" as many here had hoped!

The point remains.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Andre wrote:
"(however, we have been "down that road" already and it seems to me that the case for an eternal Hell is pretty weak)."




1) Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

2) Mt 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

3) Mt 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

4) Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

5) Mr 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

6) Heb 6:2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

7) 2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

8) 2Pe 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

9) Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

10) Jud 1:13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

11) Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

12) Rev 19:3 And again they said, Alleluia. And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.

13) 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.


ok . . . so for some people, direct statements from the mouth of the Almighty are "pretty weak". From my point of view, I would rather believe what the Word clearly says and have God prove me wrong, Himself in the end; than to reject what He said because someone says it doesn't make sense or means something else??????
. . . not gonna go there.

 

let's review the text:

Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

please notice the word is "suffering" present tense, not past, but present = currently suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

 

When God says that the wicked are able to destory the body of the righteous today DOES he really mean "no meaningful life of joy and relief from pain"??

In Matt 10 Christ goes from the idea of “Kill” to the even MORE complete idea of “Kill and destroy” in the sequence above. This progression is seen clearly as Luke relates the same teaching below.

Question for the exegetical review –

#1. What would the primary intended readers of Matt 10 have accepted as “in this life” the wicked ARE able to “Destroy the body” to “Kill the body”. Would they not think of it as “really kill the body” or would they see themselves in “ever-living-physical bodies” that the wicked NOT able to kill much less destroy??

Answer: They would obviously accept that their earthly bodies ARE killed, tormented and even destroyed in this life!! Destroyed as in “killed and turned into ashes”

#2. Would the first order primary audience have concluded that to DESTROY the body goes beyond just KILLING it and leaving it in tact as a corpse? Would they conclude that DESTORY means to not only kill – but ALSO to destroy the remains of the body!?? Indeed they would!

They are “destroyed” – reduced to ashes by that “eternal fire” from God sent as ‘judgment” as the “punishment” of eternal fire..

Peter forgot so say "Destroy does NOT mean reduced to ashes - it means no more meaningful joy of the city of Sodom".

How curious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Where Jude 7 says "cities" you say "not the cities" where Peter says "Destroy by reducing them to ashes" you say "oh no! Destroy is just removing meaningful joy from them in life - so that they continue to live to exist forever but without joy".

How interesting that your views are the direct contradiction of the definitions we see in scripture.

Surely that is "tradition" driving you to such an awkward result.

In Christ,

Bob

 

just a quick reminder - all the dead will be resurrected to stand before God - from the sea, death and hell - which includes ALL people [including Sodom and Gomorrah] who ever lived regardless of how they died:

Rev 20:11 ¶ And I saw a Great White Throne, and the One sitting on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled; and a place was not found for them.
12 And I saw the dead, the small and the great, standing before God. And books were opened. And another Book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of the things written in the books, according to their works.
13 And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell gave up the dead in them. And they were each judged according to their works.
14 And death and hell were thrown into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.
15 And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Rev 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 [literal translation renders this as "to the ages of the ages" = forever/eternal/everlasting/no end].

 

I must confess that I suspect that you and I have different ideas about the nature of "case-making", serious debate etc. Listing a bunch of quotes that appear to support "eternal torment", is of course, a starting point. But one needs to defend those texts from other interpretations - one needs to rule out those other interpretations with solid arguments. And in many cases, alternative interpretations have been shown to be defensible.

Take Daniel 12:2 as just one example. Just recently in this thread, there has been a detailed back and forth. I submit that an impartial "expert" on the nature of rational debate would conclude the following:

"The case that this text supports only an 'eternal torment' position has not been made. Other perfectly plausible interpretations have been put forward. It is simply insufficient to establish the plausiblity of the 'eternal torment' interpretation - one must also show competing interpretations to be incorrect"

When you write "I would rather believe what the Word clearly says and have God prove me wrong, Himself in the end; than to reject what He said because someone says it doesn't make sense or means something else", you are effectively saying "the matter is beyond debate". But the whole point of this discussion (at least as I understand it) is to actually defend one's interpretation with sound argument.

I will repeat what I have said in an earlier post. The same Biblical text can be successfully integrated into different models of the nature of Hell. This has been shown repeatedly in this thread.

 

They are “destroyed” – reduced to ashes by that “eternal fire” from God sent as ‘judgment” as the “punishment” of eternal fire..

Peter forgot so say "Destroy does NOT mean reduced to ashes - it means no more meaningful joy of the city of Sodom".

How curious.

In Christ,

Bob [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Dear Bob,

You have a very curious mind. And I don't want to sound like I am attacking you, really, but you are not making any sense. What difference does it make how someone dies? when the body is dead, it's kaput, fini, wasted, done for - whether you chop it up or burn it to ashes makes zero difference to God. In the end, He WILL raise "it" up and "it" WILL face judgment. After judgment eternal life or eternal damnation will be the verdict. It's not cloudy, muted, shadowed, hidden, obscure, unclear. It's as plain as day. Either your name is in the Lamb's Book of Life or it's not. At that point you either get heaven or hell for all eternity. It's right there clearly written, no mistake. Read Rev 10:10-15.

the "meaningless life/joy" phrase that I gave was AN EXAMPLE - not literal, my own opinionated albeit "weak" attempt to make sense [which only proves that you cannot improve on the Word ] so, please, smother the smoke screen - as tempting as it is to use it, I ain't biting

 

I must confess that I suspect that you and I have different ideas about the nature of "case-making", serious debate etc. Listing a bunch of quotes that appear to support "eternal torment", is of course, a starting point. But one needs to defend those texts from other interpretations - one needs to rule out those other interpretations with solid arguments. And in many cases, alternative interpretations have been shown to be defensible.

Take Daniel 12:2 as just one example. Just recently in this thread, there has been a detailed back and forth. I submit that an impartial "expert" on the nature of rational debate would conclude the following:

"The case that this text supports only an 'eternal torment' position has not been made. Other perfectly plausible interpretations have been put forward. It is simply insufficient to establish the plausiblity of the 'eternal torment' interpretation - one must also show competing interpretations to be incorrect"

When you write "I would rather believe what the Word clearly says and have God prove me wrong, Himself in the end; than to reject what He said because someone says it doesn't make sense or means something else", you are effectively saying "the matter is beyond debate". But the whole point of this discussion (at least as I understand it) is to actually defend one's interpretation with sound argument.

I will repeat what I have said in an earlier post. The same Biblical text can be successfully integrated into different models of the nature of Hell. This has been shown repeatedly in this thread. </font>[/QUOTE]ahhhhh .......... I see - it makes no difference if the word for eternal is "owlam" in Hebrew which means everlasting/eternal/forever - which was categorically rejected because the choice was made not to accept it. based on what criteria? bias? translator ignorance [scholars with linguistical degrees]? compared to your credentials?

the weight of debate is with you, not me. I take the Word for what God says based on historical and linguistical premise/pre-requisite/God preserved, clearly stated translation. That is my position is this "debate". You are taking His Word, redefining it against the norm, without cause, other than for the "sake of argument". In the end God will have the "final answer"