Was reading the book SURPRISED BY HOPE and in his chapter PURGATORY, PARADISE, AND HELL he casts doubt on the traditional view of Hell and says that the word Hell that most believe comes from medieval imagery over from what the early Christian writers said. That would be true if most read Dante's Inferno literally, however what baffles me is this line. The point is that when Jesus was warning his hearers about Gehenna he was not as a general rule, telling them that unless they repented in this life they would burn in the next one (176). He goes on to doubt the validity of Luke 16 and refers to it as a "parable" taken from stock imagery from ancient Judaism, and he also says in reference to Luke 13:3 that Jesus was warning his hearers of the coming judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70 by Commander Titus as that was the primary meaning he had in mind. While this may be true it is not WRONG to use Luke 13:3 to warn people of the burning Hell that awaits them if they do not repent. Reading this guy he knows his stuff and is more of a NT Scholar than Mac and Sproul combined. However others scholar at his level such as DA Carson do not agree with him. I am also reading a book called SIGHS FROM HELL by John Bunyan and he uses some very harsh language in reference to Hell and to that of sinners. I will not repeat his language on this board for fear of an infraction. I may not even repeat his language when I am out witnessing, but no doubt Bunyan takes the scripture literally. So what say you? Is NT Wright correct, or is Bunyan correct on what the Bible teaches on Hell? I am all for the traditional view and believe NT Wright is wrong on a number of issues, so its no wonder people like Rob Bell would endorse this book.