I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

For what its worth, I am with (figuratively) the "missionary of the Lord Jesus Christ with extensive Bible training". To that I believe many would add words like faithful and respected.

Maybe Matthew 9 has nothing to do with this but how do we explain away the thrice repeated phrase, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Matthew 25:41 may not be relevent either but it seems to be in my understanding, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:"

Anyway, that's my understanding and part of the reason why.

 

Thanks and God bless, mnw.:wavey:

 

It is not a reference to immortal worms as some have supposed. Rather it is due the fact the the Ghenna was being used as the symbol for fiery hell and in that place worms digested the corpse of the dead. The point was that of "complete destruction" where the worms can not be stopped and the fire that burns there can not be stopped from the real work of a complete destruction.

The focus is not on "immortal fuel" it is on a destructive process that will not stop on its own - it will completely consume its fuel.

The issue of eternal fire has already been addressed

Fiery Hell – is in fact “eternal fire” – Everlasting fire

Matt 25:41
41 ""Then He will also say to those on His left, " Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;



Matt 18:8-9
8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.
9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.[/quote]


Eternal fire is what consumed Sodom and Gomorrah – they are exhibited as a perfect example of the “punishment of eternal fire”

Sodom and Gomorrah were Destroyed by “fire and brimstone”[/b]. So [b]eternal fire is composed of fire and brimstone[/b] and the “destruction” it causes is exhibited by Sodom and Gomorrah.

So they are a perfect example of the punishment of eternal fire DESTROYING something.

Let’s not turn a blind eye to it.

 

What would be the need for eternal fire if eventually there is nothing left to burn? If everything is destroyed then what remains for the eternal fire?

 

The historian's contribution is not in the form of making a doctrinal statement sir. The point is simply a fact of history.

Please focus on the point at hand.

You asked for proof that the early Christian church was incorporating paganism - as a fact of history. I show it and then you whine that this is only historic fact and not a doctrinal argument? Please.

You then challenge the fact that pagans would be the real, early and original source for the concepts of hell introduced by the RCC - and so when I show pagan history and origins for that you whine that it is "pagan"???

Are you playing games or discussing facts sir?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I keep pointing out that all the major Bible translators admit to the the correct rendering of Matt 10:28 as "Do NOT fear those who kill the body and then can do nothing more" and can not kill the soul -- "but rather fear him who is able to destroy BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell".

In this statement you have done more to expose the flaws in your own argument than I have done in all these pages.


#1. Though I have consistently used the approved rendering for the text "destroy" you immediately leap out to a synonym for destroy "anhihilate" as if to say "Bob stop saying anhihilate". In presenting that response to my ONLY using the term "destroy" you admit to the synonym - you admit to the flaw in your own argument.

#2. By arguing AGAINST the synonym never used by me in this debate - but not using the word "Destroy" you show that your own argument is opposed to the text so blatantly that you must use a synonym to reject the text (even though I have not used that synonym even once) since using the SAME term "Destroy" would simply expose your flawed argument to even the most casual reader.

Your approach there - SHOWS the flaw in your own argument sir. Surely you can see that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Are you asking this about the case just presented from Jude?? Sodom and Gomorrah?

The attribute "eternal" is a reference to the source being God and the destruction being complete total and final. For all eternity Sodom is destroyed, burned up, fully consumed. Nothing stopped the fire from doing its work.

It is not a reference to immortal worms as some have supposed. Rather it is due the fact that Ghenna was being used as the symbol for fiery hell and in that place worms digested the corpse of the dead. The point was that of "complete destruction" where the worms can not be stopped and the fire that burns there can not be stopped from the real work of a complete destruction.

The focus is not on "immortal fuel" it is on a destructive process that will not stop on its own - it will completely consume its fuel.

 

First John said ...

Then when the pagan proof is given for the point John raised -- given from authentic pagan sources - John complains as follows

I quoted you as saying YOU doubted the view of hell held by pagan sources and that it predated (Greek for example) Christianity and that it was the forever torment concept of the dark ages RCC. I simply show those pagan sources to be refuting your claims about them -- and then you whine that they were quoted as disproving your assertions about them.

Are you merely playing games here or discussing facts sir?

in Christ,

Bob

 

I asked for proof of the doctrine coming from pagan sources, not for proof from pagan sources. I expected scholarly sources like the church fathers, theological journals, etc. You evidently have no access to such Christian scholarship and thus went to wicked non-Christian sources for what you could not prove from real scholarship.

You give your proof of what you say happened in history from modern-day pagan sources. Such pagan sources are anathema to the Lord Jesus Christ and I rebuke you in His name. By linking to their sites you are encouraging people to read portions from the "Satanic Bible" (not a traditional pagan source, but far worse), link up with those who think all religions are okay and there is no such thing as truth, and buy a wicked book (which you quote from) that says Jesus Christ never existed.

Shame on you, sir. You should bow before the Lord Jesus Christ and ask forgiveness for this.

 

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

 

I am asking about any eternal fire.

This sounds very much like a, "What it says is this but what it means is this" type of an argument.

If referred to its eternal source then why did it not say so? I do not have the time to look at the Greek but I am sure the sentence structure will point to the fire being described and not some outside source.

I agree there are not immortal worms, unless you mean worm in the classical sense in wich case it could mean a snake or dragon, but that is probably not the case.

Complete destruction seems to be read into the passage instead of naturally being understood.

The process itself cannot be eternal because it will eventually cease to have a reason to exist.

The end of Revelation 20 points to eternal suffering in the Lake of Fire as do other Scriptures.

God knows I wish it were not eternal, but I believe it is and that believe is taken from a plain reading of Scripture.

 

Indeed - you believe in "eternal fuel but not immortal worms" when the text says "their worm does not die". To get to that point you have to take bias into the text instead of noting that exegesis demands we admit the reference here to the worms of ghenna and their work of destroying corpses.

The strained interpretation of "well then that means immortal corpses - in fact it means corpses that are not corpses at all - but living people tossed into ghenna" when reading about the "worms that do not die" in that future "Ghenna" is - massively bent from the exegesis that would be allowed in the text -- even in the extreme.

I do not call that "simply accepting what it says" I call that - wrenching the text violently.

Then in the case of the "cities of Sodom and Gomorrah" that are "EXHIBITED" as examples of undergoing the the destruction punishment of eternal fire -- you are choosing NOT to notice what IS exhibited - which is that those cities are in fact destroyed to this very day.

Again - I would call that an extreme avoidance of the inconvenient details in the text that point to eternal fire as something that does NOT create "eternal fuel". The natural reading of the text would be to LOOK at Sodom and Gomorrah - and the fact that they are forever destroyed and conclude that this is EXACTLY what happens when something is burned by eternal fire since they are stated explicitly to be an example of that very thing! Even the most casual reader would pick up on that glaring fact.

In both cases you switch away from the complete work of the destroying force - and switch TO a supposed eternal-fuel conclusion.

That is simply not in the text at all sir.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Today we will sometimes hear about a building that is set ablaze with a fire that could not be quenched by the fire department. (That happened recently near Cary North Carolina in fact) The fact that this is a known real life situation means that the author using that example was using a known real life illustration of what takes place in real life when it comes to an "unquenchable fire".

The strained idea use by some that this is meant to show "eternal fuel" is bending the text far beyond what any rule of exegesis would allow. In fact the argument that is attempted is "not only does eternal fire really mean eternal fuel it even means to day immortal fuel". This is Satan's argument "you shall NOT surely die". By contrast in Ezek 18:4 we have "The SOUL that sins it SHALL die". THis was spoken by the God who ALSO said he destroys "BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell" and that we should not fear those that kill the body but are unnable to kill the soul.

When I read the progression in Matt 10:28 that start from "kill the body but unnable to KILL the soul" that then goes to not only kill but "DESTROY BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell" -- I see and read 'destroy' -- and I accept it.

When I read that a perfect example of the punishment of destruction by eternal fire is Sodom and Gomorrah - EXHIBITED to this very day as what happens when something is subjected to eternal fire - I accept that "yes indeed Sodom was DESTROYED" never to revive for all of eternity.

By accepting that these examples do show exactly what they say instead of imagining "eternal fuel" and then ignoring all the inconvenient details - I find a way to fully accept what the Bible is teaching here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Grace and Peace BobRyan,

I don't believe that one liberal Catholic author speaks for all Roman Catholics as you appear to posit in your argument.

Are you suggesting because Bokenkotter's book is a 'best seller' that it is accurate and authoritative?

I believe it is a smart strategy for you to use liberal Catholic Authors to undermine the more nominal Roman Catholic position but I ultimately question your conclusions as being objective.

I seen you post these things before here so I know this is some kind of recipe which attempts to establish your position but I believe any objective study of the evidence reveals weaknesses in your argument.

Peace.

 

So why does the worm not die? Surely it would ultimately die once it ran out of somethnig to consume?

Why is the fire not quenched? Fire needs fuel and God does nothing without purpose. Is He just going to let the fires burn for no reason for all eternity? Think of the gas bill!

Further, there are a number of other Scriptures which clarify this position of eternal suffering in Hell. Not that I believe this text needs clarification.

 

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.

Remember?

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.

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.

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.

You appear to complain that he was allowed to admit to even that little bit that he DID print in this volume!!

How "instructive".

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.

In Christ,

Bob

 

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?

Ghenna is being used as a symbol for fiery hell.

Christ argues that JUST as we see Sodom and Gomorrah fully destroyed by eternal fire - nothing to stop that fire SO the wicked are fully consumed by the destroyer - by the consuming fire - like a worm in Ghenna that just will not die on its own.

It is very difficult to spin that into "immortal fuel" or "eternal fuel".

In fact you would need eisegesis to do it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I understand the worms and the literal georgraphy of Gehenna are figurative of symbolic of another place.

But the application you are making seems way off.

 

As we note with Matt 25 trying to argue that "A worm that does not die means that the fuel is immortal" - is a huge wrench of the text. It turns out that those other texts have to be bent and wrenched AWAY from the inconvenient details in those texts to result in the more pagan views of infinite torture being dealt out by the Creator to those He has created.

Rev 14:10 is a good example of one of them.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am simply observing the obvious - that the focus is on the complete destruction in the case of the "Worm that does not die" not on "immortal food" being just what worms need so that they can be immortal.

I am showing that those who see clearly that Christ can not be referring to immortal worms (as some here claim to see clearly) and then leap into the realm of "immortal food" have taken a far leap off that cliff of reason to get to a story they much prefer.

In Christ,

Bob