No Place Like Hell

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Sheol’ in the Hebrew was translated as ‘Hades’ in the LXX.

To the reader of the LXX,
Hades was Sheol. Sheol was Hades. Your assertion that they are different does not hold up given this simple fact.

The ‘gates of Sheol’ simply referred to the fact that no one leaves Sheol apart from Him who has the keys.

Mixing in Greek mythology came later. The idea that there is a ruler over Hades whose job is to keep souls is from Greek myths. Yet many of us, if not most of us, think of the Gates of Sheol as referring to Satan’s kingdom.

Yet this doctrine cannot hold up using scripture.

Earlier in this thread it was suggested that Hell was Satan’s kingdom. I challenged that statement but got no response.

Timotheist,
I love your points of view.

The Greek culture had a profound affect on the Jewish People.
It's pretty clear that Israel's rebellion created their exile and in that exile the adoption of superstitious concepts were a consequence.
Christians beware!
What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

Do people believe there are actual gates to hell? :-)

Peace

[awareness]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Do people believe there are actual gates to hell?

People believe all kinds of crazy things.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Timotheist,
I love your points of view.

The Greek culture had a profound affect on the Jewish People.
It's pretty clear that Israel's rebellion created their exile and in that exile the adoption of superstitious concepts were a consequence.
Christians beware!
What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

Do people believe there are actual gates to hell? :-)

Peace

I admittedly rushed the part about the "Greek stuff coming later."

Hellenization ran rampant through Judaism for hundreds of years BC, creating all kinds of crazy variants of "scripture". The job of the canonizers was to identify and remove Greek-influenced texts from the Bible.

Did they do a perfect job? No. Ecclesiastes probably should have been discarded, along with parts of Proverbs.

And when Jesus said "Sophia is justified by her children", it makes me pause and wonder if He really said that. But, He was probably being sarcastic, and we need an emoji indicating that in the Greek.

I used to take issue with Luke's story about Lazarus and the rich man. First point: Hades is the term used for the place the rich man is in, whereas Sheol is generally described as the place where ALL the dead go until resurrection. So where did Lazarus go? Was Luke Hellenized to the point of believing in a heaven/hell afterlife apart from the resurrection?

So here is where I am at today in my research. In Revelation, at the second resurrection, it says, "The sea (Abyss) gave up the dead in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead in them." This points to three areas containing dead things.

Luke's story also describes three areas: "Bosom of Abraham", Hades, and a gulf separating them.

OT justification of the three part Sheol? Ezekiel 31:

I6 made the nations tremble at the sound of its fall when I brought it down to the grave with those who go down to the pit. Then all the trees of Eden, the choicest and best of Lebanon, all the trees that were well-watered, were consoled in the earth below.
17
Those who lived in its shade, its allies among the nations, had also gone down to the grave with it, joining those killed by the sword.
18
"`Which of the trees of Eden can be compared with you in splendor and majesty? Yet you, too, will be brought down with the trees of Eden to the earth below; you will lie among the uncircumcised, with those killed by the sword. "`This is Pharaoh and all his hordes, declares the Sovereign LORD.'"

This passage mentions a well-watered area of comfort for some, and a place for the "uncircumcised" for the others. And there is also a "pit" mentioned.

So right now I tend toward believing that the term Sheol was subdivided into three areas, with "Hades" describing the second area instead of the whole thing. Why was this done? Maybe the answer is simple: Judea adapted to the usage of the Greek words "Hades" and "Abyss".

So going back to Luke, I have to admit that I still question Luke's description of Hades as a fiery torment. Why cannot it simply be a "dry" place, without "comfort"?

[manna-man]

Why can't they just be asleep like Lazarus?

Torment doesn't have to be literal pain. Fear is a type of torment...but still, scrub the whiteboard and go back to Genesis where we first learn of death then keep it simple unless you discover something more concrete than pseudo-faith sown into a once pure language/narrative/culture.

Peace

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

The job of the canonizers was to identify and remove Greek-influenced texts from the Bible.
Did they do a perfect job? No. Ecclesiastes probably should have been discarded, along with parts of Proverbs.

At the risk of sounding a bit flippant (UntoHim flippant...say it ain't so!) what renowned, reputable seminary or school of higher learning did you hear that "The job of the canonizers was to identify and remove Greek-influenced texts from the Bible"?

So I'm guessing you subscribe to the Thomas Jefferson view of the Scriptures....simply pull out your trusty razor and scissors and cut out the parts that you don't like. Timotheist, do you realize how dangerous this sounds? Where do you get off telling us what "probably should have been discarded"? I would expect much more cautious and temperate things from you.

Yes, some of the Jews were influenced by the Greco-Roman/Hellenistic culture and society around them, but do you really think that God would chose those who were most influenced, or those who were lest influenced to produce the Scriptures? Think about that.
-

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

At the risk of sounding a bit flippant (UntoHim flippant...say it ain't so!) what renowned, reputable seminary or school of higher learning did you hear that "The job of the canonizers was to identify and remove Greek-influenced texts from the Bible"?

So I'm guessing you subscribe to the Thomas Jefferson view of the Scriptures....simply pull out your trusty razor and scissors and cut out the parts that you don't like. Timotheist, do you realize how dangerous this sounds? Where do you get off telling us what "probably should have been discarded"? I would expect much more cautious and temperate things from you.

Yes, some of the Jews were influenced by the Greco-Roman/Hellenistic culture and society around them, but do you really think that God would chose those who were most influenced, or those who were lest influenced to produce the Scriptures? Think about that.
-

Dear brother Untohim,

It could be said that the renowned schools that you refer too and prolific teachers like Darby and others had a profound effect on the steering/teaching and adding to the gospel narrative.
(Such as the word hell and the imagery it paints on/in the brain...)

Shalom

[UntoHim]

Maybe you could refresh my memory, beloved brother manna-man, but I don't believe it was Darby or any seminary professor that brought us the following imagery:

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41,42

Are you in the school of thought that says that Jesus never said anything about the "fiery furnace"? I hope not. The actual anglicized word "hell" is not as important as the reality of what the Lord Jesus warned about in Matthew 13. Whatever anglicized word you use is of little consequence compared to the reality that there will be a final judgment. And there WILL BE weeping and there WILL BE gnashing of teeth. And those who will find themselves in this place will be without excuse, for "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life". This is the Gospel message that was preached by the Lord Jesus, the Scripture writing apostles and the earliest of Christian believers, teachers and scholars.

Shalom to you as well
-

[manna-man]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Maybe you could refresh my memory, beloved brother manna-man, but I don't believe it was Darby or any seminary professor that brought us the following imagery:

The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41,42

Are you in the school of thought that says that Jesus never said anything about the "fiery furnace"? I hope not. The actual anglicized word "hell" is not as important as the reality of what the Lord Jesus warned about in Matthew 13. Whatever anglicized word you use is of little consequence compared to the reality that there will be a final judgment. And there WILL BE weeping and there WILL BE gnashing of teeth. And those who will find themselves in this place will be without excuse, for "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life". This is the Gospel message that was preached by the Lord Jesus, the Scripture writing apostles and the earliest of Christian believers, teachers and scholars.

Shalom to you as well
-

Untohim,

Nobody ever claimed nor made an assertion that there will be no final judgment or that the elements of fire wouldn't be used ever.

My point from the beginning was always [Eternal Torment] this anglicized word i don't use but dismiss for the use of it does have MAJOR consequence and effect on those who use it and abuse it.

I hope that emotions don't get the best of us here and I also hope as well that we can remain open for the discussion/fellowship.

Peace

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by manna-man

Nobody ever claimed nor made an assertion that there will be no final judgment or that the elements of fire wouldn't be used ever.

I didn't say, nor even faintly imply that you made such an assertion. Please read my posts a little more carefully!

My point from the beginning was always [Eternal Torment] this anglicized word i don't use but dismiss for the use of it does have MAJOR consequence and effect on those who use it and abuse it.

If you don't like the way certain words/terms have been used in the English translations then may I suggest that you go get yourself a PHD in the biblical languages, get yourself appointed to a bonafide, reputable translation team and make a difference, my man!

You know what has MAJOR consequences? When people try to change the actual words/terms used by the Lord Jesus and the Scripture writing apostles. This is dangerous. It is not a light thing to change, or even water down the Holy Scriptures to make them comport with our human sentiments. As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Do you know that there are some "modern" translators/interpreters who want to change this to read "Jacob I loved, but Esau I have loved less". My friends, this is exactly what some have tried to do with this issue of "hell".

I hope that emotions don't get the best of us here and I also hope as well that we can remain open for the discussion/fellowship.

Agreed.
-

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

At the risk of sounding a bit flippant (UntoHim flippant...say it ain't so!) what renowned, reputable seminary or school of higher learning did you hear that "The job of the canonizers was to identify and remove Greek-influenced texts from the Bible"?

-

You may not like it, but that is exactly what they did! There was lots of junk written during the Greek period, and most of that was discounted as spurious.

The Apocryphal books are "the best of the worst", and even those we do not take as canon.

But keep in mind that the writers of the NT did not have a "canon". Jude cited Apocrypha in his opening verses. So what should we do with Jude?

In the epistle of Barnabus, he used the Phoenix as proof of the resurrection, as if the Phoenix was not a myth. Thank God that book was left out of the canon.

There are numerous examples of this, so I feel VERY justified in identifying those passages.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Timotheist, do you realize how dangerous this sounds?

UntoHim,

Your argument for a fiery Hell is well-taken but why demean the arguments of others as "Dangerous"? Timotheist is giving his view based on what seems to be a lot of study. This isn't dangerous at all.

What is dangerous, to me anyway, is the idea that we are not permitted by the guardians of truth to use our minds. Isn't that kind of your beef with the LR anyway, UntoHim ... that WL and his cohort shut up all debate?

SC

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Your argument for a fiery Hell is well-taken but why demean the arguments of others as "Dangerous"?

I'm not arguing for anything, much less a "fiery Hell". I simply quoted a verse, and this verse stands in stark contrast to some of the claims being made on this thread. Nothing more, nothing less.

Timotheist is giving his view based on what seems to be a lot of study. This isn't dangerous at all.

Witness Lee claimed the same thing for himself. Some of Lee's teachings are among the most dangerous out there. Nuff said on that for now.

What is dangerous, to me anyway, is the idea that we are not permitted by the guardians of truth to use our minds. Isn't that kind of your beef with the LR anyway, UntoHim ... that WL and his cohort shut up all debate?

Who has asked anyone not to use their minds? Please point me to the thread and post number and I'll deal with that pronto! In the meantime, don't look now, but I think you're debating right now! Just sayin....
-

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I'm not arguing for anything, much less a "fiery Hell" … In the meantime, don't look now, but I think you're debating right now! Just sayin....
-

Concerning the “fiery Hell” comment, I read between the lines. It’s my gift.

As for the debating bit, touché. You win that point but I’ll be back. You know I will.