Is hell eternal?

Hell (hades the grave) is tossed into the Lake of Fire and brimstone. There the wicked suffer "IN THE PRESENCE of the LAMB and of His Holy Ones" Rev 14:10

Those who expect to "party on" while their precious daughter screams out in torment - are sadly mistaken.

They will be there for every single moment according to Rev 14:10. Even Johnathan Edwards admits to the torment that takes place IN THE PRESENCE of the LAMB and in full view of the saints!!

The Lake of Fire is NOT the great moment of JOY you anticipate Boanerges.

 

When the LAKE of FIRE is viewed as "fiery hell" then we see the Matt 10 statement that God "DESTORYS BOTH body AND soul in hell Fire" Matt 10:28

 

Heb 10:27

Ezek 28:18

Ps 104:35

</font>[/QUOTE]

 

The statement "Does anyone really believe that God wants to sit around and remember the deeds of the wicked after they have been judged for the final time?" begs the question at issue since it really speculates about what God will or won't do. It would be better if this claim were defended a bit.

As you yourself state, the rest of the texts are addressing God's relation to the saints, not the lost. So it has no bearing on my proposal that God is the one "doing the abhorring" in respect to the lost.

 

These counterarguments to Bob's list of texts suggesting annihiliation do not really work.

If one is "consumed", the necessary consequence of this is non-exsistence, so the "it says nothing about hell" argument is not relevant. To me, you seem to be taking Person C's perspective in the following dialogue.

A: "Fred died last week."
B: "That's sad - he won't be at the party next Friday
C: "Why do you say that, B? A has told us that Fred died, but did not say anything about him missing the party.

In other words, "being consumed" implies non-existence and makes one no longer a candidate for Hell.

Re "And let the wicked be no more". The context makes (the preceding statement about the sinners being consumed) makes it clear that this is a statement about the status of the wicked themselves and not about our memory of them.

 

quote:
"In other words, "being consumed" implies non-existence and makes one no longer a candidate for Hell."


Deu 4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God.

Hbr 12:29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Does this mean that God does not exist?

 

Andre:
Why do Catholics pray to "Mary?"
Is she not "dead," consumed.?

 

Bob wrote:
Though the fire the burned Soddom is said to be eternal in Jude - it is not "Still burning".

The final disposition of sinners is "both body AND soul DESTROYED in the fires of hell" Matt 10:28.

You seem to think you have a way to "trick God" out of that.

"'Detroyed' both Body AND Soul in hell fire. How final! How "eternal" is that utter and complete destruction Eh?"

*******

eloidalmanutha:

For reference:

Matt 10:28
And you should not fear the ones killing the body, but not being able to kill the soul. But rather fear Him being able to destroy both soul and body in Hell.

Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.

My opinion

Destruction of soul and body in hell would mean life outside of God and without the possibility of redemption, not annihilation. Destruction/destroy does not mean zero existence. Those who have died, such as from Sodom and Gomorrah, are burning in fire as per Jude since God sent down fire to consume the city. The people do not exist physically on earth, were destroyed/died, but "exist" in a consuming fire that does not "destroy" in hell presently. They will be "resurrected" to be judged and returned to the fires of hell, along with satan and his minions for all of eternity.

Destroy in Hebrew [#7843] means:
to be marred, be spoiled, be corrupted, be corrupt, be injured, be ruined, be rotted, to pervert, corrupt, deal corruptly (morally)

Destroy in Greek [#622] as used in Matt 10:28
to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin, render useless,
metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell, to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed, to lose

Perhaps the insistence that hell is a "physical" fire with properties such as we understand them, is not the fire of Heaven.

God is a Consuming Fire - but obviously He does not "burn up". He refers to His Word as being refined by Fire seven times, yet His Word is Forever, Eternal.

Our works will be consumed by fire, yet something remains - intent and motive of the heart. Not everything is "consumed".

Other "fire" from Heaven would be what appeared to be tongues of fire on the disciples at Pentecost - no "fuel", not "consuming" but as a sign that the Holy Spirit was sent to indwell all true believers.

Isaiah, when He saw the Lord on His Throne said "woe is me, for I am cut off, a man of unclean lips". The angel took a live coal and touched his lips and told him his iniquity was taken away. Isaiah was neither burned nor scorched nor consumed, but was touched by Heavenly fire, yet his sin was "consumed".

When Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden, a flaming sword guarded the Tree of Life - it was "Heavenly fire" that did not consume, but could have killed/destroyed life.

Ezekiel tells us that satan walked the up and down in the middle of stones of fire before he was cast out of Heaven. Yet he was not consumed or destroyed. The Heavenly fire he walked through would be his eternal destiny as the fire of judgment - eternal because it is the fire of Heaven - without beginning, without end.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were thrown into what appeared to be an "earthly fire" - Jesus walked with them in this "fire from Heaven". It did not consume them, nor did it scorch or burn them.

One of the plagues on Egypt was a fire mixed with hail. Heavenly fire.

The Israelites were led by a pillar of Fire. Fire from Heaven.

God descended on Mt Sinai in a Fire, a Consuming Fire that did not consume the mountain.

Elijah called down fire from Heaven and it consumed wood, stone, and water instantly. It consumed physical properties on this occasion yet, when The Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a burning bush. The bush was not consumed or burned up.

The rich man was tormented in "this flame" - it did not consume him - it is the fire of judgment, not an earthly fire.

The second death is to live in eternal fire - the fire of judgment.

If God says that eternal torment is burning in the fires of hell, it is forever without end. When life on earth is destroyed or "consumed" - there is no remaining opportunity to be reborn of Spirit and Water = Redemption/Salvation - time is up.

I really think we have no comprehension of the kind of fire that is eternal and consuming without being consumed.

Last, but not least, I was rather surprised to see the 2 Peter 3:7-12 text used in support of a "destroying, consuming" fire, as if that should be connected with hell/annihilation. Verse 7, certainly, but not 8-12 - that passage refers to the destruction of the earth and heavens as we know them, to be replaced by a "new Heaven and a new earth" - fire from Heaven to make all things new. The earth remains, it does not disintegrate - it is "consumed by fire", but it's not consumed/annihilated - it is made new by fire.

The Fire of Heaven - it can refine and it can burn forever in torment.

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.

ps: people in hell hate God, don't want God, and hate themselves - the abhorance of their actions will be a stench in their nostrils as it is to God's. Eternal torment is the punishment for rejecting God. Our thoughts, motives, intents in Heaven will be to worship God, not be concerned about those in hell. That is part of suffering in the here and now and the grief that will be wiped away when we see Him face to face.

[ February 05, 2006, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: eloidalmanutha ]

 

If a consuming fire (lets say -- from the gas line) burns up the house -- does the "gas line not exist"??

The ones who argue that for a consuming fire to actually CONSUME something - then God must not exist - are just not thinking this through.

In Christ,

Bob

 

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

 

The same concept of Kill and “Destroy” applied in the real world to real saints really being killed by real wicked people is applied to BOTH the body and the soul in hell fire in Christ’s warning .

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!!

#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!

 

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)

 

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

 

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.

 

It only locks it in your own logic, Bob. God's Word is true. Jesus said the rich man was tormented in the flames, not annihilated.

You can twist and turn the scripture all you want, but in the end, if you don't quit denying Christ's Word on an eternal hell and an eternal punishment for all that are assigned thereto, you will be one to find out the true torment, the true pain, the memories, all that is associated with the lake of fire for all eternity.

 

Jesus gave out several points uniquely suited to Jewish belief -- Abraham is in charge of all dead saints and and prayers of the wicked dead who are "in the flames" go directly to Abraham. He is apparently in charge of sending anyone back from the dead. GIven that CHRIST HIMSELF came back from the dead - that places Abraham in charge of God!

I realize that some are very anxious to make that Luke 16 parable "a historic event" rather than a parable - but all these "fit for Jewish parable" facts seem to keep getting dropped whenever they claim the parable as history.

I find that very curious.

But I will grant you this - IF one could ignore the fact that Luke 16 is a parable AND they could ACCEPT all this jewish myth ideas as actual fact - then they can ALSO make the case of the flames and the torment with all the saints NOT going to heaven but instead going to "sit in Abraham's lap"!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

First of all--a parable is NOT a Jewish myth. Are you saying Jesus was telling fairy tales when He taught in parables?

Second, Luke 16 is NOT a parable.
Definition of a parable: Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible

PARABLE

"A parable is a comparison between material and spiritual truth, designed to teach doctrine and obedience. It may be given in the form of a narrative, a proverb, or a reference to an event or institution" (Bruce Lackey).

"Parable" means to lay something alongside another. It means to compare two things. The word parable in Greek is also translated "comparison" (Mr 4:30) and "figure" (Heb. 9:9). See also Mt. 13:24, 35, etc. "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto..."

We also see this in the Old Testament parables. In these, the prophets compare many things:

Numbers 23:18-24, Israel compared to a unicorn and lion.

Psalm 49:4, 12, 20, man compared to beasts that perish.

Ezekiel 17:2, 12, the king of Babylon to an eagle.

Ezekiel 20:45-49. God's judgment of Israel to a fire.

Ezekiel 24:3 ff, Jerusalem to a pot of boiling water.

Some parables are proverbs. The Greek word "parabole" is also translated "proverb" in (Lu 4:23). Two examples of New Testament proverbs are Lu 6:39 and Mr 3:23-27 .

The Bible parable has been called "an earthly story with a heavenly meaning."

WHY DID JESUS TEACH PARABLES? The Lord Jesus taught in parables to hide truth from those who would not believe Him (Mt 13:10-17). A parable requires some consideration. Those who don't care about the truth will not go to the trouble to understand a parable and will also stumble at its meaning, because they will try to understand through their own thinking rather than seek God's help. On the other hand, the one who wants to know the truth will humbly and persistently seek out the meaning. The Lord's disciples asked Jesus to explain the parables (Mt 13:36). See Pr 26:7. As the lame person is unable to walk or do many things properly, so the foolish person cannot understand parables properly.

THE INTERPRETATION OF PARABLES. The primary law of interpreting parables: A parable is given to teach ONE central truth. "The safest way to handle a parable is to search out the leading thought or principle idea round which as center the subordinate parts must group themselves" (Herbert Lockyer). An attempt to make extended application of each detail of a parable can produce false interpretations. The details of the parable are important, but they only contribute to the primary meaning of the overall parable.