I Have a Question About Hell and Eternity

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."

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

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).

 

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

.......Case Closed!!

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

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

 

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

 

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:

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

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.

 

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?

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?

 

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!!

 

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