Will ALL non-Christians, including those that remain entirely faithfull and good to their own religion, go to hell?

Will ALL non-Christians, including those that remain entirely faithfull and good to their own religion, go to hell?

Were all the people who lived before the death of Jesus Christ doomed to an eternity in hell simply because they were born at the wrong time, through no fault (or choice) of their own?

We don't work to earn our to heaven. As a christian, we don't donate money, volunteer time, etc to get into heaven. The sacrifice of Jesus erased the complete punishment of our sins. Our God is a personal God, one of a compassionate Father. He's there for us. And it is through that gift we are taken to heaven. Without the mercy of God, none of can be in his presence. Not me, not anyone, according to the bible.

That verse in james is used out of context. It's saying that faith will show in your actions. It's not saying you earn your faith.
Obviously, once you follow Jesus, then you do as He says.
Jesus sacrifice was for all sins. Not some sins. All sins.
Biblically speaking,if you're judged, it's two ways, up or down. There's no "well you only hit 2 old ladies, so that makes you less a sinner then that guy over there who hit three."

John 14:6  "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the light.  No one comes to the father except through me."

According to this, Jesus is saying that all who don't follow him go to hell.

A side note to something Heath said, I believe that the Bible actually says that the devil currently resides on Earth but after judgement day will be cast into the lake of sulfer and fire (hell). I could be wrong though.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire

19   There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20   And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21   And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22   And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23   And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24   And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25   But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26   And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27   Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
28   For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29   Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30   And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31   And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Since Jesus was a Jew and never mentioned Hell...

I guess we should begin with an understanding of that word. The first thing we need to know is that the English word hell has no equivalent in either the Greek or the Hebrew. Actually the word is a Saxon word, hell or helle. We also find a similar word in the German, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish languages. I always like to have a definition of any word we study, and so turning to my trusty Webster's dictionary of 1828, I found the following among the definitions of hell:

"The place of the dead, or of souls after death; the lower regions, or the grave; called in the Hebrew Sheol, and by the Greek, Hades. Psalm 16. Jon 2."
And that my friends, seems to be the standard definition of the word. Notice that in the definition while we see that hell is a place of the dead, it also says it is a place for "souls after death." So, on one hand, we have the dead residing in hell, but in saying souls reside there, we have the implication of the doctrine of the immortal soul.

Genesis 37:35:
35 "... all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.

What happened was that some 300 years before the Christian era, The Hebrew was translated into the Greek language into what we call the Septuagint, and in making this translation, the translators were not comfortable with leaving well enough alone and leave the Hebrew word Sheol un-translated. No, they had to translate Sheol into the Greek word "Hades." And of the sixty-four instances where Sheol occurs in the Hebrew, it is rendered as Hades in the Greek Septuagint sixty times. The effect of that was, from that time forth, the words became equivalent to one another, and so Sheol became Hades and Hades became Sheol.

But what an injustice to the word of God. If the translators had just left well enough alone, then today, we would only read the word "Sheol," in our Old Testaments, and people would not get Dante's inferno type visions when they see the word Sheol. But, alas we are stuck with the problem, and no amount of teaching on the part of people such as myself is ever going to rectify the situation.

Revelation 20:13-14:
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

But anyhow, since those delivered out of death and hell are next judged, and since it is also said that "death and hell" are cast into the lake of fire, what are we to conclude? Are we to conclude that the lake of fire is a symbolic expression for judgment? I would think so. And why? Well, because we are dealing with intangible conditions here -- those conditions being death and Hades, and I would ask, how can you cast intangibles into a literal lake, be it a lake of fire or a lake of water? If that be the case, then casting death and hell into the lake of fire would symbolize their destruction since they have been emptied of their last inhabitant. In other words, casting death and hell into the lake of fire is their judgment.

Now if this not be the case, then we have a new problem. If this lake of fire is to be literal, and if people are judged and thrown into it, then the lake of fire becomes hell, and that cannot be because we have just read that death and hell have been destroyed, and if destroyed, then they no longer exist, and if they no longer exist, then people cannot be in them.

Paul confirms this for us in 1 Corinthians 15:26 when he says:


"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

The story of he rich man in hell and Lazarus in Abraham's bosom in Luke 16:19-31 was not told by Christ to show what happens to people when they die, because before He told this story, He had declared in plain language that the wicked would not be cast into the fire until the end of the world (Matt 13:40-42), and that every man would be rewarded at His second coming. Matt. 16:27. This story harmonized with the ideas which the Pharisees had of the hereafter, and was given to rebuke them for their covetousness in teaching that riches are a mark of God's favor, and that poverty is a mark of His curse.

"The conversation between Abraham and the once-rich man is figurative. The lesson to be gathered from it is that every man is given sufficient light for the discharge of the duties required of him. Man's responsibilities are proportionate to his opportunities and privileges. God gives to every one sufficient light and grace to do the work He has given him to do. If man fails to do that which a little light shows to be his duty, greater light would only reveal unfaithfulness, neglect to improve the blessings given. 'He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much; and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.' Luke 16:10. Those who refuse to be enlightened by Moses and the prophets and ask for some wonderful miracle to be performed would not be convinced if their wish were granted."

And we have as we believe, clearly and fully proved, that he used it solely and exclusively to show the effects of the rejection of the gospel of the Jews, and its acceptance by the Gentiles--that it has no allusion to the future state of existence.

When one looks at the first 500 years of Christianity, not one creed even hinted at "Eternal Torment;" not one creed denied "Universal Restoration;" no church council condemned "Universal Restoration" in the first several centuries.

When one looks at the early Church's leaders and at which ones exhibited the nature of Christ's love, one will find that the vast majority embraced the "Salvation of All Mankind." When one looks at the lives of those church leaders who brought the doctrine of "Eternal Torment" into the church, we find a long string of envyings, power plays, persecutions, character assassinations, book burnings, murders, and tortures. They became like the God they created--tormentors! Their story is for another article. They exchanged the truth for a lie and brought darkness to the world--the Dark Ages. Remember them? Idolatry, corruption, rewritten history, inquisitions, crusades, relics (cutting up dead bodies of Saints and making money off of them as good luck charms), indulgences (selling certificates to sin), pogroms, witch hunts, Mary worship, corrupt popes, and torment--much torment--all in the name of Jesus Christ.

The list above is not a list of abuses of the religions of the heathen--it is a much shortened list of the horrible acts and beliefs of the church! The church became so corrupt that it declared it a sin for a believer to have a Bible. For those of you who are not Roman Catholic and feel that the above list does not pertain to your denominational church history, I want to remind you of the fact that the two leading reformators of the Protestant movement, John Calvin and Martin Luther, were great admirers of the "Champion of Eternal Torment," that is, St. Augustine. As a matter of fact, Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk, and John Calvin was the main instrument in bringing back to life the "Predestination Doctrine" of Augustine, which said that God preplanned the majority of mankind to eternal torment and there was nothing a person could do to change his lot!

In the King James in Matthew 25:46 it reads, "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." The same verse in Rotherham's Emphasized Bible reads, "And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, but the righteous into age-abiding life." Although the Rotherham Bible is one of the 26 translations, the publishers, Baker Book House, did not show that Joseph Rotherham's translation radically disagrees with the King James Bible even though that was the very purpose of the book. They did not want the public to know that there were some major doctrinal differences among translations so they just pretended that they were not there. A reader of that book will think that Rotherham agrees with the King James, because the above Rotherham verse was not listed, when just the opposite is true. I know of more than a dozen Bible translations written in the last 200 years that significantly disagree with the King James Bible on this verse.

As a rule I don't buy this "not to be taken litterally" stuff

It says there quite clearly what is going to happen to those who's name is not written in the book of life. 

In fact, here's a site dedicated to this parable and showing why it should be taken figuratively and not literally: http://tentmaker.org/books/Lazarus.html

And you quote Revelations as proof for the literalness of the Bible?????

Paulos typed:
revelations 20:15 typed:
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire


It says there quite clearly what is going to happen to those who's name is not written in the book of life.

Revelations is one of the most figurative language portions of the Bible, talking about dragons and the horsemen of the Apocalypse.  It is almost all allegory and figurative examples to warn the righteous.  So to me it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to quote Revelations as proof of anything "literal" in the Bible.

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
   And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
   Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
...
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew 25:46
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment."

Problem:
This passage is used to prove the eternal torment of the wicked. It is argued, that since the same Greek word, "aionios" is used for the duration of life for the righteous as for the punishment of the wicked, therefore the wicked are subject to eternal torment.

Solution:
The punishment is everlasting, but it is not conscious eternal torment. The punishment will be final and complete cutting off. (Psa. 37:9, 34). Life eternal is reserved for the righteous, but the wicked are to die "the second death" (Rev. 21:8) which in Scriptural terms means to be without thoughts. (Psa. 146:3,4; Eccl. 9:5). The word "everlasting" is used of a result, not a process. Similarly, "eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:2) and "eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12) do not mean that judgment and redemption will continue throughout eternity, but rather that their results are eternal.

The wicked are to suffer torment at the Judgment Day (Matt. 8:12; 13:30, 40-42, 49-50; Luke 12:47,48), but this is not eternal torment. Other Scriptures either state or imply a termination of the torment. For example:
Speaking of those who "know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ", the Apostle Paul states that they "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess. 1:9).
Jesus stated that "if a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:6). To be "cast forth as a branch" and "burned" suggests termination of the burning when that which is burnable is consumed.
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake . . . to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan. 12:2 cf. Jn. 5:29). It is the contempt or damnation which is everlasting, not the conscious torment.

Even if by "everlasting punishment" is meant "everlasting conscious torment", this passage in itself does not prove the eternal torment of the wicked since the Greek word, "aionios", can mean either limited or unlimited duration.1 Although the New Testament nearly always uses "aionios" with the meaning of unlimited duration,2 there are a number of occurrences in the Septuagint3 (where the Hebrew equivalent "olam" is translated "aionios") in which a limited duration is obviously intended. For example:
"The lasting [aionios] hills"; "The eternal God is thy refuge and underneath are the everlasting [aionios] arms." (Deut. 33:15,27). The intended meaning of "aionios" is limited duration in the first reference whereas in the same chapter the second reference is to unlimited duration.
The Aaronic priesthood is termed, "an everlasting [aionios] priesthood throughout their generation." (Exod. 40:15). Limited duration is intended in this reference since the Aaronic priesthood was later to change (Heb. 7:12) when that which "waxed old" was ready to "vanish away". (Heb. 8:13).
See also Gen. 49:26; Exod. 12:17; 21:6; Jonah 2:6; Hab. 3:6 ("perpetual" hills = "aionios" hills).

Many passages in Scripture teach that eternal life is the reward for the righteous (e.g. Luke 20:35,36). There are also many passages which teach that the ungodly and wicked will be destroyed or perish (e.g. 1 Thess. 4:13 cf. John 3:16; 2 Thess. 1:9). It is not therefore, merely an arbitrary decision to choose endless duration for "aionios" life of the righteous and limited duration for "aionios" punishment of the wicked. The decision has been based on the use of the Greek word elsewhere in Scripture and the teaching of other passages on the respective rewards of the righteous and wicked.

The word "punishment" is translated from the Greek word, "kolasis" which means "a pruning". It comes from the verb, "kolazo" which means "to curtail, dock, prune, but usually like Lat., 'castigare' to keep within bounds, check, chastise."4 This denotation is in complete harmony with the Scriptural teaching on the punishment of the wicked. Jesus said that the wicked would be cast like branches into the fire. (John 15:6). The Psalmist said they would be "cut off" (Psa. 37:9) and "shall not be". (Psa. 37:10). Malachi states that the wicked will be burnt like stubble leaving them "neither root nor branch" (Mal. 4:1), like "ashes" to be trodden under foot. (Mal. 4:3). This is not the kind of language one would associate with immortal souls in torment for eternity.

I'm not an atheist, but I'm bored tonight - so I'll bite! ;)

How does not believing in God correlate to not accepting responsibility for your actions?  It is possible to be an atheist and still be a good person.  Some of the nicest people I have known in my life have been atheists - and some have been Christian, as well.  Those people are good people because they accept responsibility for their actions and do not leave their fate in the hands of an invisible divine force.

Isn't doing good for the sake of aiding your fellow beings more selfless then doing good in pursuit of a reward in the afterlife?

An athiest would usually deny compelling evidence, because it would mean they are wrong.

To be an athiest means to deny even remote possibility of God. Why? Why the need to discount it completely?

Two men.  One does good, selfless acts all his life, but never hears the name "Jesus Christ".  The other just is an average Joe, never goes out of his way to help anyone, but "he Believes", he "has Faith", sincerely and with all his heart.  Who goes to heaven?  Why?

Wanna make it tougher?  The lifelong sinner, habitual murderer and torturer, who confesses, and truly changes to Faith and Belief on his deathbed.  (Note- Not ALL X-ian doctrines buy this one.)

God determines who goes to heaven, not I.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Albedo, there's a couple ways of looking at the question of whether you are being answered or not.
...
The answer was there...

I believe the discussion was intently, for some time, on how the concept of Hell may have evolved from earlier mythology into its present form in the Bible. I don't believe anybody doubts that Hell is mentioned in the Bible itself... I haven't read the Bible in many years, but I'm pretty sure it's got to be in there somewhere. Simply quoting the Bible, when the question is "is the Bible right on this issue?" isn't particularly adequate, nor can it be considered to constitute an answer.

Assuming that is correct, what qualifies one's name to be written in this Book of Life.

No, *I*'m Catholic, and you're LDS.  One thing we have in common is a strong reliance on tradition not in the bible.

The word "hell" is encountered 54 times in the Bible.  In looking them over, every Old Testament reference appears to point to a metaphorical state of being or something similar (such as equating war with hell), but nothing stating that there is a literal hell that people will be cast into if they disobey or do not go through the Messiah.

In the New Testament, "hell" is used more frequently.  It seems to expand and say that, yes, there is a devil and he resides in a literal "hell."  It talks about the damnation of hell and hell fire related to punishment.

Since the New Testament is written in Greek instead of Hebrew, you find that the word translated as "hell" is actually "hades."  The usage of this word is defined as follows:

"In Biblical Greek it is associated with Orcus, the infernal regions, a dark and dismal place in the very depths of the earth, the common receptacle of disembodied spirits. Usually Hades is just the abode of the wicked, Lu."

So they will go to the "abode of the wicked" is the best translation.  This isn't necessarily the same as the image of "hell" being propounded today.

The word "gehenna" is probably what you are referring to.  It means the eternal abode of the lost in the Lake of Fire.  Tartaroo (from "tartaros") is also used in the New Testament.

"Sheol" is the word used in the Old Testament.

So there are 4 words in the entire Bible describing Hell (3 in NT and one in OT):  Hades, Gehenna, Tartaroo, and Sheol.  The total usage of all these words together in the entire Bible is about 90 times.

Sheol was used 64 times in the OT, translated as hell 31 times, grave 30 times, and pit 3 times.

Gehenna is used 12 times in the NT and always translated as "hell."  The Greek Hades is used 11 times and translated as hell 10 times and grave 1 time.  Tartaroo is used one time and is translated as "hell."

"Hell" is the predominant translation, but there is no equivalent word in Greek or Hebrew:

quote:
I guess we should begin with an understanding of that word. The first thing we need to know is that the English word hell has no equivalent in either the Greek or the Hebrew. Actually the word is a Saxon word, hell or helle. We also find a similar word in the German, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish languages. I always like to have a definition of any word we study, and so turning to my trusty Webster's dictionary of 1828, I found the following among the definitions of hell:

"The place of the dead, or of souls after death; the lower regions, or the grave; called in the Hebrew Sheol, and by the Greek, Hades. Psalm 16. Jon 2."
And that my friends, seems to be the standard definition of the word. Notice that in the definition while we see that hell is a place of the dead, it also says it is a place for "souls after death." So, on one hand, we have the dead residing in hell, but in saying souls reside there, we have the implication of the doctrine of the immortal soul.


The English word "hell" comes from the name of the underworld goddess: Hel, from Norse mythology, who was Loki's daughter, goddess of death and the underworld to which those who did not die in battle were sent.

The "burning" and "fire" you see in the Bible generally refer to "thoroughness."   Imagine you are a blacksmith forging a weapon...or even a doctor.  You use the fire to thoroughly mold the weapon to your use on one hand, and a doctor, especially in ancient times, would use fire to cleanse.

In the OT, Sheol is used as a figure of speech to describe the depths to which judgment will reach on the people of Israel.  (See Deut. 32: 21-25.)  (Anyone who knows about Jewish tradition will tell you that figures of speech are common and have great poetic imagery.)

This is a repeat of a post I did earlier.  It discusses Sheol.  You can see my full post on page three in this thread.



So "Sheol" is a place of the dead, a place for "souls after death."  It does not equate to our English vision of Hell or eternal punishment.

Don't you think this makes a whole lot more sense in the face of a loving and compassionate deity than sending sinners off to burn in hell forever?  It is well documented that such images and ideas were created well after the death of Jesus.

Quotes From Historians
To my knowledge, all of the historians and theologians that I am about to quote taught the "Doctrine of Eternal Torment." Not one of them mentioned in their writings that they believed in the "Doctrine of the Restitution of All Things," or ultimate reconciliation. Unfortunately, most of you, because you were not taught to really study, will probably not know these historians and theologians I am about to quote. That is very unfortunate, because it is these men and others like them that run the seminaries and Bible colleges and write the textbooks and Sunday school manuals. I said earlier that if you let someone speak long enough they will usually give themselves away. Listen to some of the comments of the early Christians and then ask yourself, "Why are we not taught this today?" Also keep in mind that I will be quoting historians and theologians. They generally do not write for the understanding of the average person. They write for each other and use hard-to-understand English. Just read slowly and understand there will be a great reward for the effort.

The great church historian Geisler writes: "The belief in the inalienable capability of improvement in all rational beings, and the limited duration of future punishment was so general, even in the West, and among the opponents of Origen, that it seems entirely independent of his system" (Eccles. Hist., 1-212).

This statement is very significant because many modernists attribute to Origen's influence the fact that the vast majority of early Christians did not believe in eternal torment! Keep in mind these historians I am quoting do not embrace the "larger hope." What Geisler said in a nutshell was that the church believed in ultimate reconciliation, even many of those who opposed Origen.

The German theologian and historian Johann Christoph Doerderlin (1829-1888) writes: "In proportion as any man was eminent in learning in Christian antiquity, the more did he cherish and defend the hope of the termination of future torments." Later on, as when we read some of the early Christian writings, we will find this statement to be true; the more learned a Christian was in the Scriptures in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, the more likely he or she was to see the "Doctrine of the Restitution of All Things." Those such as Augustine, who said he hated the Greek language, who read only the Latin Vulgate translation, began to be prone toward the "Doctrine of Eternal Torment."

One of several reasons for this was because the Greek word "aion," which meant "age," was translated into the Latin Vulgate as "aeternum" and "seculum." This was a serious mistake which also corrupted our English translations. This error was instrumental in changing the doctrine of the early Christians who believed that punishment was confined to "age." The Latin church, filled with unconverted pagans, separated themselves from the original languages and secluded themselves into the corrupted Latin Vulgate and began to teach what the pagan religions had taught for centuries--eternal torment. I have much information about this. If you want to learn, I'll be happy to send it to you.

Professor and historian Henry Nutcomb Oxenham informs us that the, "Doctrine of endless punishment was not believed at all by some of the holiest and wisest of the Fathers, and was not taught as an integral part of the Christian faith by any even of those who believed it as an opinion."

One of the ways of verifying this is to look at the earliest Christian creeds. None of them mention "eternal torment" as the final punishment of the wicked or unbelievers.

Historian Pfaff says: "The ultimate restoration of the lost was an opinion held by very many Jewish teachers, and some of the Fathers" (frag. anec.).

The famous Dietelmaier has this to say: "Universalism in the fourth century drove its roots down deeply, alike in the East and West, and had very many defenders."

It should be mentioned that the "universalism" taught by the early Christians has nothing to do with modern universalism. To the early Christians, salvation was given to all of mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This is Christian universalism; something very different from New Age beliefs.

Reuss writes, "The doctrine of a general restoration of all rational creatures has been recommended by very many of the greatest thinkers of the ancient church, and of modern times" (Hist. De la Theol. Apost.).

The world renowned Neander has this to say: "From two theological schools there went forth an opposition to the doctrine of everlasting punishment."

The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908) by Schaff-Herzog says in volume 12, on page 96, "In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

The number of schools in the early church that taught ultimate reconciliation is an embarrassment to many modern church historians. Therefore, they often do whatever they can to hide these facts. I mention again that these Christian Universalists who were clearly the majority of the early Church, believed that all mankind through Christ would be restored. They believed and taught and many laid down their lives for the belief that Jesus Christ was truly the Savior of the whole world. Remember, these historians just quoted were not "Universalists." Also note that the school that taught "Eternal Torment" was in Rome, where the original Bible languages were abandoned and replaced with Latin. Those of you who are familiar with Daniel's image made up of four kingdoms are also probably aware that the legs of iron might speak of the Roman Empire.

What the People Believed
We just read that the majority of the schools taught ultimate reconciliation. But what did the average person on the street believe? I am going to quote three church leaders of that time period.

St. Basil the Great (c. 329-379) in his De Asceticis wrote: "The mass of men (Christians) say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished." I point out that he is not classified as a Universalist.

St. Jerome (342-420), the author of the Vulgate Latin Bible and whose jealousy got him into an ugly scandal that stained the church, writes: "I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its King, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures."

The last person I want to quote regarding what the average early Christian believed, is the very champion of the doctrine of "Eternal Torment" himself--Saint Augustine. He stands right next to Emperor Constantine as a key figure leading the church away from the original teachings of the Old and New Testaments. Augustine was in the Manichaean religion for nine years prior to becoming a Christian. This was an Eastern religion of fire worship. In this system, the universe would be divided forever between good and evil. The Romans and Greeks had a habit of incorporating the religions of the countries they conquered. The religions of the East flooded into the church after Constantine united church and state. Constantine provided the building materials to build this monstrous structure and Augustine built the theological structure. His most famous writing was The City of God. Now listen to the champion of "Eternal Torment" regarding the view of Christian believers over this matter over four hundred years after Christ's resurrection: "There are very many (imo quam plurimi, can be translated majority) who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments" (Enchiria, ad Laurent. c.29).

Out of his own mouth, the hero of the eternal tormentors of Christendom, states that in his day many or the majority of Christians did not believe in endless torment and they did not deny the Holy Scriptures by believing it. In this period of time, the great teachers still read the new Testament in Greek, but Augustine admits that he "hated Greek." Let us now read some of the all-time great leaders of Christianity of the early Christian era who did not hate the Greek language and see what they have to say.

Another problem that one has to overcome when trying to find out what the early Christians believed stems from what came to be called the "Doctrine of Reserve." It was often easier to use fear than love and patience to restrain the heathen, so very often fear was preached to the masses and the "Doctrine of the Restitution of All Things" was "reserved" for the more mature in Christ. Most of us do not realize that when Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire hundreds of thousands, or even perhaps millions, entered the church without a true conversion. Now the church was full of people who were heathen at heart but soon became leaders in the church due to the normal political processes of the Roman governmental system. The Church now had leaders and laity who were not truly converted, but rose to power through nepotism, deceit, popularity, and all the other ways the world raises its leaders.

Since many now in the Church were really not converted, they had to be restrained by fear. It is at this point in church history that the writings and teachings began to take a turn away from the teachings of the previous 300 years. The church leaders felt that the "Doctrine of Reserve" was an effective way of keeping order among new members, many of which were still heathen in their hearts. In hindsight, it was the door to a flood of pagan doctrines that entered into the church which led her right into the Dark Ages.

It was because of this doctrine that some of the writers in this period seem to contradict themselves. They said different things to different groups of people, and if you did not know that you would think they were contradicting themselves. In fact, they were contradicting themselves, but this "Doctrine of Reserve" was the cause of it.

I'm just curious......do those of you who don't believe in a literal Hell(Gr. alternatiely Hades/Gehenna, Heb Sheoul) believe Jesus was being allegorical in the immense amount of teaching he presneted on Hell? Jesus spoke more about Hell than about Heaven. It seems like He really went out of His way to point out the negative aspects of Hell(ie, fire not quenched,worm never dies,etc.),if indeed, Hell is not literal.

As my earlier discourse shows, an accurate reading of the Bible from the original language and customs shows that there is no literal hell, just an abode of the dead before resurrection.

I don't think it's THAT interesting. The bible is absolutely full of analogies. And they don't have a lot of stories of Satan going down to the corner and buying a carton of milk. Mostly Satan only appears when tempting people. I don't see any reason to believe Satan is an actual entity, just like when the bible says "God hardened the Pharoah's heart" and decided against letting the Jews go, I don't think God actually had anything to do with it. The Pharoah was just being a jerk, it was his own free choice.

Do you have anything that would negate my thoughts? I'd really be happy to hear it. I'd sort of prefer that Satan were a real entity. It'd make life a bit more interesting : )

A more accurate response would be you feel there is no literal hell. There are experts of the bible who feel there is a literal hell. Certainly there is scripture speaking of a punishment that is eternal, and much suffering.

I really don't think that is entirely verifible. For example katisara, how do you know Jesus was crucified? If you say the bible says so, then you have to account as to how it's shown to be literal crucifiction, as opposed to allegorical crucifiction.

a)  Historical documents indicate that Jesus lived and Jesus was put to death by the Romans
b)  Throughout the bible prophets predice Jesus will be put to death.  To assume his death as indicated isn't real would go against previously written scripture
c)  Crucifiction was a real, relatively common and verifiable event witnessed by many people and publically recorded.  Satan randomly appearing is, as far as we can tell, not common, never verified, never recorded by trustworthy witnesses and for all intents and purposes, not a 'real' event (in that whether it happened literally or not is totally irrelevant).

You know the bible is from God, so it's verified.

Historical documents show that hell is spoken of.

and going to hell is a verified event that happens as recorded by historical documents.

You're using the bible as truth in some cases, but discount it in others. I feel that may be giving the idea to the bible has areas that are not truth.

Let me start on point one. Obviously there is literal in the bible. That's not in dispute. We're disputing what should or should not be considered literal in this case.

Point two, does it really matter if the bible is substantiated by outside sources when talking of Satan?

When talking of the crucifiction, if there was no "outside" sources, would you say Jesus was not crucified?

Yes, Jesus did come back and talk of hell. Revelation is Jesus leading John through a spiritual journey. Showing John things Jesus knew and saw.

Now as to Satan, Katisara, Jesus had a conversation with him recorded when Satan tempts Jesus.

I'm actually unclear why you feel satan is not real. Is the bible only literal when verified by other documents?

We say something is cold, but there really is no such thing as cold, just lack of heat.
So when we say someone goes to Hell, what we're really saying is that someone will be denied the holy presence of God.

How is Hell the enemy's war machine?

Once they're adults we let them make their own decisions regardless how much we detest their decisions and try to persuade them otherwise.  We don't force them against their freewill because then its selfish of us to want to keep them more than we want to let them have freewill.  Instead we try to unconditionally love our children and simply try our best to persuade them and protect them without forcing them.

Will ALL non-Christians go to hell?

This is one of those questions by Christians for Christians. It doesn't make any sense as a question to a non-Christian. Why is anyone else discussing it? Do you non-Christians (if there actually is more than one other around here) really think that it matters whether Christians say you're going to hell or not?

(I'm not talking about other traditions that believe in hell, since the question is obviously asked with respect to Christianity.)

My beliefs are different than Christianity, that's how.

And if God truly loved everyone, why would he let ANYONE go to hell?  It's irrational.  If you love your kid, you're not going to let them hurt themselves if you can stop it.

So how can God hurt his "children" by sending them to Hell?

Another question:  I believe in the Bible and Christ, that he is the Messiah and Redeemer of the world.  I have been baptized too.  Yet mainstream (particularly Baptists and some Evangelical Christians) would say I'm not Christian because I am a member of the LDS church.  So assuming everything I believe is false and there really is a Hell, would I be a Christian and go to Heaven or would I be sent to Hell under their beliefs?

This is one of those questions by Christians for Christians. It doesn't make any sense as a question to a non-Christian. Why is anyone else discussing it? Do you non-Christians (if there actually is more than one other around here) really think that it matters whether Christians say you're going to hell or not?

1) There is no reason to limit threads to just stuff everyone would be interested in.  If you want to open a thread just interesting to Muslims or Jews or Satanists, just ask.

2) Speaking for myself, I AM interested in where other religions say I'll go.  IN the case of Islam, I already know (hell).  But Buddhism?  It's difficult to tell.  If someone were to come here and start talking about that, I would be very interested.  So just because it isn't your cultural group being asked the question, that doesn't mean it's not interesting to you.

And Query, I wasn't suggesting that a non-Christian shouldn't examine Christian beliefs and draw conclusions about them. I sure do! But I also find it a little strange to engage in this discussion in Christian terms. How can a non-Christian tell a Christian what he believes? You can point out their logical goofups, inconsistencies, etc., but you still can't answer the question for them. Then again, maybe what you are proposing is just devil's-advocatism.

I don't think it's off topic to question the question. But feel free to address the issue in any way you like! It's a free space.

Katisara, you also said:


Not all Muslims think you will go to Hell if you are not a Muslim. Most probably do, if they think about it at all (and most people, we must admit, don't think about these things no matter what tradition they "belong" to).

Do any Christians today believe that this subterranean Hell is real? If not, then why do they disbelieve their own scriptures? Or is it just allegorical (taking us back to another, troubled, thread)? If it's allegorical, on what grounds is this Hell understood allegorically while other parts of New Testament text are understood literally (e.g., resurrection)?

Okay, since this thread is just for discussion about the notion of Hell, I'd like to address the idea of Hell presented in the New Testament.

Hell there is described as subterranean, with a very hot lake of fire, nevertheless dark, where human beings are tortured for eternity.

A collection of the references from which this picture is compiled is available here:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hel_bibl.htm

Do any Christians today believe that this subterranean Hell is real? If not, then why do they disbelieve their own scriptures? Or is it just allegorical (taking us back to another, troubled, thread)? If it's allegorical, on what grounds is this Hell understood allegorically while other parts of New Testament text are understood literally (e.g., resurrection)?

It's not that we disbelieve what is said in the NT, but just that our modern day figurative way of speaking does not have the same meaning as the ancient ones.

This talks about the Doctrine of Reserve and similar issues:
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/EarlyChristianView.html

The ancient inventors of "HELL":
http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/AncientHell.htm

Even Funk & Wagnall's recognize that "Hell" for early Christians was not this fiery place of torment:
http://www.what-the-hell-is-he...allsEncyclopedia.htm

This is a must read for anyone who really wants to know the origin of our modern day way of thinking about Hell and its origins in the Catholic Church:
http://www.tentmaker.org/artic...steachingonhell.html

Because logically it doesn't make sense that God would send children and babies to burn in eternal torment, nor someone who simply doesn't believe or never even had the chance to believe in Christ.  In other words, if there were such a Hell, God's judgments would not be "judging correctly," just judging arbitrarily.

I don't follow that. How can you say God is wrong?

God isn't perfect, Rogue, get over that.  If he was, why would Satan ever have left him?  Why would we not be in paradise?  If God was perfect, we would be perfect as well.  But we're not, He royally ****ed up.

I'm pretty much for and against everything.  Yes, that makes no sense, which is pretty much the point.  I question everything.  Don't argue with me, I really don't know what I'm talking about.  I'm asking you the questions.

...

wow...

All I can say is wow...

God isn't perfect, Rogue, get over that.  If he was, why would Satan ever have left him?  Why would we not be in paradise?  If God was perfect, we would be perfect as well.  But we're not, He royally messed up.

While that's not strictly agnostic, I needed a term to call you. Don't kill anyone as a consequence. Especially me.

...

wow...

All I can say is wow...

God isn't perfect, Rogue, get over that.  If he was, why would Satan ever have left him?  Why would we not be in paradise?  If God was perfect, we would be perfect as well.  But we're not, He royally messed up.

Not that I agree with crazyguy, but the accuastion of "bias" (so commonly heard in public these days) is nothing more than an accusation of preference.

And Katisara, I disagree about whether the people in here, assuming together some of the "basics" of Christianity, are having a discussion about their theological assumptions. I think those assumptions are mostly unstated. They're actually talking about their conclusions.

Why would satan leave God? Because satan wasn't perfect, and was jealous of God.

The argument that someone wouldn't rebel against perfection is pretty weak. There are likely numerous reasons to do so. ...Because one is jealous, or wants more power, or is greedy, or some other reason we may not be aware of.

Why are we not in paradise? Because back when Adam and Eve were in a paradise of Eden, literally walking and talking with God, they disobeyed God, and we inherited that sinfulness.

Because God is perfect is not a good argument to say we should be perfect. God could make imperfect things if He chose. I don't think there is a logical statement that suggests God is limited to creating only perfect things.

If I was following a perfect leader, I wouldn't want to rebel.  If the leader was perfect, I would be happy.  If someone is perfect, everything they create (including the angels, in this case) would be perfect as well.  If you are perfect, you cannot create something that isn't.

And why wouldn't he make us perfect?  He said we were "good."  If you are perfect, then nothing can be good unless it is as perfect as you.  If something is worse than me (a person, for example), I'm not going to say that that thing/person is "good."  I'm going to say that they "aren't good."

As far as I can see, what's at stake is Christians' concept of God's mercy as well as their concept of God's foreknowledge.

How far back the questions go, that's another issue. I'm not going to wade into phenomenology, though. I'll leave that to you, Query!:) Me, I'll stick with an assumed common experience of human life and work from there!

Inaccuracies of this page aside (such as the preposterous statment that Manichaeans worshipped fire), the notion that ancients believe that God's torture of the sinners he created is not eternal isn't a surprise. After all, it doesn't go with the whole all-merciful thing. (Isn't that also an LDS point?)

But it does probably contradict Jesus reported words, Matthew 25:46 -- depending on how you interpret Greek aionion, a troubled term (though your citations document that Paul thought everyone'd be saved).

This shows what the references that I gave showed, that Gehenna was the place name of a garbage dump where refuse was burned.

You can say they are wrong to believe literally in this kind of Hell, but the pages you have cited actually document the existence of the belief.

We might be arguing at cross-purposes here. You seem to be trying to convince me that the commonly understood notion of Hell is false.

Anyway I guess I'll step aside and let Rogue's "literal" eternal Hell wage an arena battle with Heath's "rational" temporary Hell.

I don't follow that. How can you say God is wrong?

Heath's idea that there is no permanent Hell relies on LDS assumptions.

I don't want to say that anyone's belief is wrong.  I just want to point out the historical facts and origins of beliefs so that people don't ascribe them to the wrong source or interpret them in a way that was never intended by the authors.

No, I'm pointing out the origin of the common Christian belief of Hell.  It frustrates me that people would engage in such hellfire and damnation sermons to try to scare people and judge them instead of acting in a true Christian manner, which is free of discussion of such a literal place.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!
I have not yet even discussed the LDS viewpoint.  In fact, I have even posted a site here that references an LDS viewpoint.

So you ARE saying that their beliefs are wrong? Or are you saying that they don't actually believe in eternal hellfire? I mean, you're saying they're not right... so...

Oh. I see. I didn't realize you wanted to include the Sons of Perdition in your notion of Hell, because you were arguing for an impermanent hell. I thought you were arguing for the temporary Hell described on all those links you gave earlier, which I diligently read. Including the one about the LDS view!

Five "wrong"s in all caps?

I mean, you can say you don't believe these LDS principles
http://www.mormon.org/question...01-1-1372-16,00.html

I was given a link to that site on lds.org.

Go to lds.org

Click "Basic beliefs"

You get a new window, mormon.org

Then click Frequently Asked Questions. Then Click "beliefs and doctrines." Then click "What does the Church Teach About Hell?"

Can't get much more official than all that.

You say "impermanent Hell isn't a good reflection of LDS beliefs," the official site says "it is a temporary state of existence." I say same thing.

Each one of the LDS Church Apostles witnesses Christ? Does that mean they each get to see Jesus?

How are Apostles chosen to be Prophets? Is Prophet a for-life position?

Does he designate a successor before he dies or what?

Are their Prophetesses?

Hell consists of a city of unbelievers.  They are stuck in their pettiness and wickedness.

How does this account for the fact that many of the greatest civilizations in history have been composed solely of unbelievers?

I don't believe that www.mormon.org is an official church website.  The official website is www.lds.org.  However, I could be wrong.

Well I hope not personally I would seriously question any just creator creating and using a place called Hell in the Christian viewpoint. I would think even the most evil persons would be rejoined to the creator at some point after all Hell in the Christian view is unique.

This talks about the Doctrine of Reserve and similar issues:
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/EarlyChristianView.html

The ancient inventors of "HELL":
http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/AncientHell.htm

Even Funk & Wagnall's recognize that "Hell" for early Christians was not this fiery place of torment:
http://www.what-the-hell-is-he...allsEncyclopedia.htm

This is a must read for anyone who really wants to know the origin of our modern day way of thinking about Hell and its origins in the Catholic Church:
http://www.tentmaker.org/artic...steachingonhell.html

Interesting questions/inconsistencies for those who believe in a literal Hell:
http://www.what-the-hell-is-he...ellsEternalDeath.htm

Bible Translations:
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html

The "Fire" symbolism:
http://www.tentmaker.org/BreakingBread/1.html

C. S. Lewis wrote an excellent depiction of Hell in The Great Divorce.  Hell consists of a city of unbelievers.  They are stuck in their pettiness and wickedness.  As time goes on, they tend to isolate themselves, since their fellow citizens of Hell are bundles of sin, and therefore hard to live with.  So the people that have been there the longest tend to move farther and farther out from the city, and spend eternity isolated with their own dark souls.

Another problem that one has to overcome when trying to find out what the early Christians believed stems from what came to be called the "Doctrine of Reserve." It was often easier to use fear than love and patience to restrain the heathen, so very often fear was preached to the masses and the "Doctrine of the Restitution of All Things" was "reserved" for the more mature in Christ. Most of us do not realize that when Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire hundreds of thousands, or even perhaps millions, entered the church without a true conversion. Now the church was full of people who were heathen at heart but soon became leaders in the church due to the normal political processes of the Roman governmental system. The Church now had leaders and laity who were not truly converted, but rose to power through nepotism, deceit, popularity, and all the other ways the world raises its leaders.

Since many now in the Church were really not converted, they had to be restrained by fear. It is at this point in church history that the writings and teachings began to take a turn away from the teachings of the previous 300 years. The church leaders felt that the "Doctrine of Reserve" was an effective way of keeping order among new members, many of which were still heathen in their hearts. In hindsight, it was the door to a flood of pagan doctrines that entered into the church which led her right into the Dark Ages.

It was because of this doctrine that some of the writers in this period seem to contradict themselves. They said different things to different groups of people, and if you did not know that you would think they were contradicting themselves. In fact, they were contradicting themselves, but this "Doctrine of Reserve" was the cause of it.

More difficult to overcome than the "Doctrine of Reserve" was the fact that many of the church leaders in this period of time felt that it was good to lie if it was to benefit religion. An example of...

The duration of the punishments of hell has been a subject of controversy  since early Christian times. Origen and his school taught that the purpose of
these punishments was purgatorial, and that they were proportionate to the
guilt of the individual. Origen held that, in time, the purifying effect
would be accomplished in all, even devils; that punishment would ultimately
cease; and that everyone in hell eventually would be restored to happiness.
This doctrine was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, and a belief in the eternity of the punishments in hell became characteristic of both the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church. It also passed into the creeds of the churches of the Reformation but the doctrine of hell was rejected by many of the more radical thinkers of the Renaissance, especially in the Baptist and Unitarian churches.

We first begin by eliminating the problem the King James Version of the Bible introduced to this study by indiscriminately translating three different words in the Bible as hell: sheol, hades, and Gehenna.

Sheol Used of Unseen

In the Old Testament, the word for which hell is given in the King James Version is sheol, a word whose root meaning is “unseen.” The King James Version translates sheol as “hell” 31 times, “the grave” 31 times (since someone in the grave is unseen), and “the pit” three times.

Yet in the Old Testament sheol was not exclusively a place of punishment, for faithful Jacob was there (Gen. 37.35, 42.38, 44.29, 31). Righteous Job also longed for it in Job 14.13. David spoke of going to sheol in Ps. 49.15 and Jesus went there, Ps. 16.10 and Acts 2.24-31. In all these cases, these men were “unseen” because they were dead.

Sheol Used of National Judgments

Many times the Bible uses the word sheol of national judgments, i.e., the vanishing of a nation. In Isa. 14.13, 15, Isaiah said Babylon would go to sheol, and she vanished. In Ezek. 26.19-21, Tyre so vanished in sheol. Likewise, in the New Testament, in Mt. 11.23, 12.41, Lk. 10.15, and 11.29-32, Jesus said that Capernaum would so disappear. These nations and cities didn't go to a particular location, but they were going to disappear, and they did. They were destroyed. Thus, sheol is used commonly of national judgments in both the Old and New Testaments.
Hades Used of Anything Unseen

The New Testament equivalent of sheol is hades, which occurs only eleven times. Like its synonym sheol, the King James Version translates the word “hell.” However, the correct translation is hades, or the unseen. The Bible doesn't use hades exclusively for a place of punishment. Luke 16 pictures righteous Lazarus there. Acts 2.27, 31 says Jesus went there. In I Cor. 15.15, Paul used the same word when he said, “Death, where is thy sting?” In Rev. 1.18, Jesus said he had the controlling keys of death and hades, the unseen, and in Rev. 6.8, death and hades followed the pale horse. Finally, in Rev. 20.13, 14, death and hades gave up the dead that were in them, and were then cast into the lake of fire. These verses illustrate that hades refers to anything that is unseen.

Hades Used of National Judgment

Like its companion word in the Old Testament, hades was also plainly used of national judgments in the New Testament. In Mt. 11.23 and Lk. 10.15, Jesus said Capernaum would go down into hades, i.e., it was going to vanish. In Mt. 12.41 and Lk. 11.29-32, Jesus said his generation of Jews was going to fall.

About hades in Greek mythology, Edward Fudge said:


In Greek mythology Hades was the god of the underworld, then the name of the nether world itself. Charon ferried the souls of the dead across the rivers Styx or Acheron into this abode, where the watchdog Cerberus guarded the gate so none might escape. The pagan myth contained all the elements for medieval eschatology: there was the pleasant Elyusium, the gloomy and miserable Tartarus, and even the Plains of Asphodel, where ghosts could wander who were suited for neither of the above...The word hades came into biblical usage when the Septuagint translators chose it to represent the Hebrew sheol, an Old Testament concept vastly different from the pagan Greek notions just outlined. Sheol, too, received all the dead...but the Old Testament has no specific division there involving either punishment or reward. (Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes [Houston: Providential Press, 1982], p. 205.)

We need to make sure that our ideas concerning hades come from the Bible and not Greek mythology. We have no problem using sheol the way the Old Testament used it, or hades, as the New Testament used it. Both refer to the dead who are unseen, and to national judgments.

The First Use of Gehenna

Most of our modern translations no longer translate hades and sheol with the word “hell.” Now we want to examine the remaining Greek word, Gehenna, that is still commonly rendered “hell.” (We will discuss whether this is an appropriate translation near the end of this study.) Notice the first occurence of this word in the Bible in Mt. 5.21-22. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell (Gehenna--SGD) of fire.

When Jesus used the term “hell of fire” in these verses, he actually used the Greek word Gehenna for the first time in inspired writing.

We want to begin with this first occurrence of Gehenna and then study all of its occurrences in the New Testament. In this way, we can determine the totality of the Bible's teaching on what is now commonly called hell.

In Mt. 5.21-22, Jesus used Gehenna for the first time in inspired speech:

Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire (Gehenna--SGD).

As we mentioned earlier in this study, Jesus actually used the Greek word Gehenna for the first time in inspired writing. The word had never occurred in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. When we read the word hell, all kinds of sermon outlines, illustrations, and ideas come to the fore of our minds. None of these came to the minds of Jesus' listeners, for they had never heard the word before in inspired speech. It is very significant that the word did not occur even once in the Septuagint, quoted by Jesus and his apostles.

I suggest that to the Jews in Jesus' audience, Jesus' words referred merely to the valley southeast of Jerusalem. In their Old Testament background, Gehenna meant a place of burning, a valley where rebellious Jews had been slaughtered before and would be again if they didn't repent, as Malachi, John the Baptist, and Jesus urged them to do. Jesus didn't have to say what Gehenna was, as it was a well-known place to the people of that area, but his teaching was at least consistent with the national judgment announced by Malachi and John the Baptist.

Do you believe that they can leave hell if they want to?  Can they choose not to stay once they're in?

I think the result of heaven or hell would be eternal. Forever and ever. Can they choose? I would suspect not. I don't actually know what hell. Some people think it literal, and some think figurative, a place away from God. People could make a point for either. I can only guess what hell is. All I know is they chose to go there.

Everyone who wishes it does. Never fear. There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell choose it. ... No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock, it is opened.

"Milton was right…" The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words "Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven." There is always something they insist on keeping even at the price of misery.

Do you also think they continue to choose to be there, or is it a one time choice, and you're stuck with your decision for eternity?

Traditional Doctrine of Hell Has Greek Roots
  By Babu G. Ranganathan


  Although I am a conservative Christian (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches or supports the traditional view of hell with its doctrine of eternal torment or suffering.

The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but that eternal punishment ultimately is not eternal suffering.

Few in society realize just how much ancient Greek philosophy influenced early Christian thought on hell.

The ancient Greeks believed and taught that the human soul is immortal and indestructible. When early Christianity adopted this belief then it became only logical to believe that those who go to hell must suffer eternal torment.

More than anyone else, the early Church bishop Augustine influenced early Christianity's adoption of this ancient Greek belief about the nature of the soul. Augustine was a great admirer and follower of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato even after converting to Christianity. It was Plato who systematically formulated ancient Greek belief and thought concerning the nature of the human soul.

The prevalent view of the early Church Fathers (during the first and second centuries at least) was that the human soul was not created immortal. However, the influence of ancient Greek philosophy on early Christianity was so strong that it was not long before the prevalent view had changed to that of the universal immortality of the human soul.

The Bible, however, teaches that man by nature is completely mortal and that immortality is a gift of God to be realized only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their faith and trust in God's Son Jesus Christ for salvation because Christ's death on the Cross fully paid for our sins and His resurrection from the grave is the guarantee of future immortality for all who believe in Him.

Although the wicked in hell, for a period, will suffer consciously for their individual sins, the ultimate penalty for sin itself will be the eternal death of soul and body and the eternal loss to immortality. That is what the Bible means by eternal punishment - the eternal loss to immortality and life. Interestingly, even Adam and Eve were not created as immortal from the beginning. That is why there was placed the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden of Eden.

  If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he no longer feels pain. If he did then he wouldn't be dead. One thing for sure is that a murderer put to death by society no longer feels any pain from society. Does that then mean that society has not punished him since he no longer feels any more pain from society?

  In Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) and God also told Adam that if he did eat of it he would die on that very day. Specifically, God said to Adam, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But the Biblical record shows that Adam did not physically die on the very day he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit. Because Adam did not physically die on the very day that he disobeyed God most Christians believe that God was referring to spiritual death and not physical death.

However, in the original Hebrew, in which the Old Testament was written, the grammatical tense of the word "die" in Genesis 2:17 is in the imperfect mood. The imperfect mood denotes a process. Thus, what God was actually saying to Adam is that he would start dying on the day he ate the forbidden fruit. The literal translation from the Hebrew of what God said to Adam is: "Dying you will die." God was not, therefore, referring to spiritual death but to physical death. The fact that God later prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24) so that they would not live eternally proves that God was referring to physical death and not spiritual death.

There are good Scriptural reasons to believe that the soul also is physical but distinct from the rest of the body, but that is another subject. Whether physical or not physical, man's soul, along with the rest of man, was created completely mortal and that is the primary point being addressed here.

The penalty for sin, then, is the death of both soul and body so that man will not live for eternity in sin. Not only is God not cruel in His eternal justice, but a holy God will not allow His moral creatures to exist eternally in sin. God will not immortalize sin and evil by making the wicked in hell immortal!  In fact, Jesus Himself emphasizes in Scripture that both the soul and body of the wicked will be destroyed (not kept alive) in hell (Matthew 10:28). All of this contradicts the traditional doctrine and teaching, taught in most churches, about the wicked having an immortal soul and body in hell.

What about "eternal fire", "unquenchable fire", "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever", the account by Jesus about the Rich Man and Lazarus, and other similar passages in the Bible that seem to teach eternal torment? The key, in many cases, is in understanding the context in which these and other similar phrases are used in various parts of Scripture.

For example, figures of speech such as "unquenchable fire" are used in the Bible to mean that the process of destruction is unstoppable or irreversible. We see an example of this in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel 20:47-48 where God says that when His judgment comes on the land even every green tree will burn and that the fire "will not be quenched". Obviously, those trees are no longer still burning. It is important to understand just why God uses such terms in Scripture as "unquenchable fire".

In the Bible, there were some judgments of God in which His wrath was quenched or stopped such as in the case when Moses interceded and pleaded before God for the rebellious Israelites in the desert. When Moses did this God stopped or quenched His wrath against the rebellious Israelites. Thus, when God says, in Scripture, that the wicked in the end will be destroyed with unquenchable fire what He simply means is that nothing can intervene to prevent Him from carrying out His wrath fully through to its completion. Over and over in the Scriptures God is described in judgment as being a consuming fire. God's righteous wrath in judgment is not an end in itself but a means to an end.

Unlike the burning bush in Exodus that Moses observed was not consumed by the fire but was preserved by God, the Scriptures teach that God, in the end, will not preserve the wicked in the fire of hell but instead will completely consume and destroy them!

Contrary to popular belief and interpretation, the phrase in Scripture "where their worm dieth not" is not a reference to the undying human soul or conscience. We have already seen statements in Scripture that God will destroy, not preserve or keep alive, the bodies and souls of the wicked in the Day of Judgment. The worm and fire were figures that people in Jesus' time could readily identify and understand because in that time the dead bodies of those who suffered dishonor in society were all commonly thrown into a certain valley where fire and worms devoured these bodies. Jesus simply seeks to convey, in figurative language, that in hell (gehenna) neither the fire nor the worm will cease until the wicked are totally consumed or destroyed!

The word "forever" is another example. In Scripture the word "forever" does not always mean endless or eternal duration. For example, in Exodus 21:6 (KJV Version) we read that certain people were to be servants "forever". Obviously this cannot mean eternity. The word "forever" or "everlasting", in the original Hebrew and Greek languages of Scripture, simply means the entire length or duration of something. If that something is immortal then the word "forever" must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word "forever" cannot mean eternity.

Thus, when the Bible teaches hell as being "forever" it cannot mean eternity because the same Bible teaches that those who go to hell are mortal and will be totally consumed or destroyed. The word "forever" in this case must mean the entire length that the wicked suffer consciously for their individual sins before they are finally and eternally destroyed. Hell is not eternal but the result produced by hell is eternal!

Scripture says in Jude 7 that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by eternal fire. These cities are no longer still burning. How, then, can the fire be called "eternal"? Because the result that the fire produced is eternal - these cities have never existed again, nor will they.

When the Bible talks about eternal judgment, or eternal damnation, or eternal destruction, it is in reference to the result and not the process! It is not the punishing that is eternal but rather the punishment! It is not the destroying that is eternal but rather the destruction! It is not the dying that is eternal but rather the death! Just as eternal redemption in the Bible does not mean that the process of redeeming is eternal but rather its result (no one would be saved if the process of redeeming were eternal) so too the eternal judgment of the wicked refers to the result of their judgment being eternal and not the process. It is not the juding that is eternal but rather the judgment!

The context of Holy Scripture teaches that the eternal punishment of the wicked is ultimately their eternal annihilation and not eternal torment or suffering as the traditional doctrine of hell teaches. As one preacher has put it: "Eternal punishment is the eternal loss of life not an eternal life of loss".

Eternal life in Scripture has the same meaning as immortality (i.e. Romans 2:7) which Christians will possess only in the future on Resurrection Day. Various Scripture passages teach immortality and eternal life to be a future possession for Christians. Why then did Jesus use the present tense when saying those who believe in Him have eternal life? The answer is that sometimes in the Bible the present tense is used to describe future events for the purpose of demonstrating their certainty. Scripture says God "calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Romans 4:17).

The Bible says Jesus Christ "hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10).. The opposite of eternal life (or immortality) is eternal death (the eternal and literal death of soul and body) - not eternally living in torment and suffering! "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting (eternal) life" (John 3:16). The issue is not what we think eternal punishment ought to be. The issues are God's character, God's definition of ultimate justice, and God's eternal purposes. It's absolutely amazing how Fundamentalist Christianity doesn't wish to be literal  when it comes to the eternal death and destruction of soul and body!

Some have argued that because man was created in the image of God then all humans must possess an immortal soul. However,  being created in the image of God doesn't necessarily mean that we must possess every attribute or even possible attribute possessed by God. For example, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - but we are not. The Bible is clear that immortality is an attribute that will be given only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their trust in Christ for salvation.

We must base our views of hell and the after life on what the Bible teaches, not on tradition or mere human philosophies and opinions. We must not impose our philosophy of what God ought to be upon Holy Scripture! Not many people realize the fact that in the New Testament there are different Greek words for the word "hell." But unfortunately the English Bible translates these different words for hell as one word, and this has been a cause of much confusion for those who wish to study the subject. The New Testament Greek words for hell are "hades" and "gehenna" and they both have different meanings. Hades means the unseen world of the dead and is only a temporary abode. It has nothing to do with punishment or reward. It is equivalent to the Hebrew word "sheol" in the Old Testament in its meaning. Gehenna, on the other hand, is the abode of eternal punishment of the wicked.

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 has often been used by many Christians, especially preachers, as a depiction of the punishment that the wicked will suffer in hell. But this is not the case. In the first place when Jesus refers to the Rich Man being in torment in the flame of hell the Greek word for "hell" in the passage is not "gehenna" (the place of final and eternal punishment), but rather it is the Greek word "hades" (which in Scripture is the temporary abode of the dead).

The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, like the other series of parables before it, was used of the Lord to illustrate or depict the end of the rule of the Pharisees and to depict the end of the Jewish Era and dispensation (as represented by the Rich Man being in torment) and it was also used of the Lord to depict or illustrate the elevation of Gentile Christendom (as represented by Lazarus). Actually, Lazarus represented the poor Jews of Jesus' time who were ignored by the self-righteous Pharisees and religious rulers of Israel and he also represented the gentiles who, although rejected by the Jewish rulers, would nevertheless be accepted into the bosom of Abraham through their new found faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The religious leaders of Israel had lived only for themselves and ignored the spiritual needs of the spiritually sick and starving people around them.

The concept that hades was a place divided into two compartments, one of suffering for the wicked and the other of bliss for the righteous, was a Jewish belief that had developed during the intertestamental period, the period of time in between when the Old and New Testaments were written. Thus, this particular view of hades was not canonical, that is it was not something that God Himself had revealed to the Jews through Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture that hades is a place where the wicked suffer while awaiting their final and permanent judgment in gehenna. Such a concept of hades developed as a result of ancient Greek influences on Jewish thinking about the nature of the soul.

In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus was simply borrowing this popular Jewish folklore of hades to use as an illustration to make a point to the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day, but He was not necessarily endorsing the folklore as being doctrinally valid or correct. There are various passages in the Old Testament, such as in Psalms, that tell us that there is no consciousness in sheol (the Hebrew equivalent of hades in the Old Testament).

Some argue that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because Jesus did not formally introduce it as a parable. But, Jesus did not always formally introduce His stories as parables, and there are various examples of that in the Gospels. Now, it is true that in His parables Jesus used things that actually existed to fill in for illustrations and figures, but in the particular case of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the Lord used a popular existing Jewish myth about hades for the purposes of constructing a story. Jesus simply used the Pharisees' own superstitous belief about hades against them!

Why didn't Jesus rebuke the Pharisees' belief about hades as being wrong? Jesus didn't go around always rebuking every wrong doctrine. For example, in Jesus' time it was a common Jewish belief (from the influence of Greek philosophy) that souls could commit individual sins before birth. That is why we read in John 9:1-3 that Jesus' disciples believed a certain man was born blind because he may have committed some great sin before his physical conception in the womb. Jesus didn't respond by telling His disciples that such a belief is doctrinally wrong but instead healed the blind man.

By no means is all of this new teaching. A minority of Christians, of various denominations, have held to this view of hell throughout the centuries. Even some very prominent Christians of the past have held to this view and there are a number (albeit a minority) of Christian theologians and scholars in the present who hold to this view. However, this view on hell, unfortunately, is known so little outside the Christian community and even inside the Christian community for that matter.

Many of the early Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther, held to the view that man, by nature, is entirely mortal (including the soul), but the great Reformer John Calvin opposed this view and specifically wrote against it and insisted that all of the Reformers present a united front. An excellent Internet site containing information on all of this is Champions of Conditional Immortality In History
(http://www.specialtyinterests .net/champions_of_conditional _immortality.html).

I highly recommend to all readers Dr. Edward Fudge's thoroughly biblical and scholarly work The Fire That Consumes (http://www.iuniverse.com /bookstore/book_detail.asp? &isbn=0-595-14342-3). The book is foreworded by the great evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce. This book should be required reading in every seminary and Bible school.

Another excellent book is Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's highly acclaimed biblical and scholarly work Immortality or Resurrection?
(http://www.biblicalperspectives .com/books/immortality_resurrec tion/).

I further encourage all to read my larger article The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell at my website www.religionscience.com  for more comprehensive and in-depth coverage of this subject. Other questions and arguments, not raised here, are answered thoroughly in my larger article. I also hope that this information will shed new light in reading the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.

*The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his B.A. with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East for his writings on science and religion. His articles have been published in various news outlets including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times. The author's science article The Natural Limits of Evolution may be accessed at his website www.religionscience.com .

Generally, when it comes to hell, my first stance is it shouldn't be an issue. We're given directions on how hell is not for us. Specifically, hell is for those who are choosing not to be with God. A choice.

And belief is not a choice, but rather a result of your experiences.

I think... I choose to believe

*** But belief *IS* a choice. Put it like this: My 14 year old has done things in the past that she's not supposed to. She's said she won't anymore. Based on my experience, I think she will ('cos she's dumb), but I choose to believe her until she proves me wrong. What's that line from "Miracle on 34th St"? Something about "Faith is believing in things when experience tells you not to" or some such? Belief is a choice.

TitL, would you say that you've choosen not to experience nirvana, or would it be more accurate to say you simply don't believe in it?  Would you say that you've decided that you don't want to be part of the highest level of paradise, or is it more accurate to say that you just don't think the LDS ideas about paradise are correct?  Would you say that you've made a conscious choice to spend eternity in hell by rejecting Allah, or would you say that you don't actually think your views on Allah will lead to your going to hell?

I mean these questions seriously, and hope you will consider them for a few seconds.

Portraying non-christians as choosing to go to hell is one of the things that frustrate me most about christians, and I'm guessing I'm not the only person whom it bothers.

I bring up the same challenge every time this comes up, but I'll do it one more time because I think it makes the point very well.  If you really, honestly, sincerely believe that this is just a choice, become a muslim for the day.

In other words, while you do not want to choose hell, you are choosing to be with God, or to be without God. It is a choice.

You analogy fails based on the fact that is not readily apparent that Christianity is true. Choice is the wrong word, it would be better termed as a wild, blind guess.

Presumably, we can accept that you don't need to know everything to accept something as true, correct? A good example is evolution. You don't need to prove every piece of information before accepting evolution is true, correct?

I'm saying you're choosing not to be with God. You associate that means a desire to go to hell. Desiring not to be with God does have the consequence of making a choice. That doesn't mean you have to like the consequence of your choice.

I'll try and make it more clear. You go into an ice cream store that has a special price on vanilla ice cream cones. However, while there are many other flavors that you think taste better, you ask for the special price for a different flavor of ice cream cone. The owner says that's not the deal being offered. He makes it known only the vanilla ice cream cone has the special price.

At that point you have the choice. You can accept the deal offered, or refuse it, and take something else, such as another flavor at full price, or just walk away.

Only one choice allows you to take up the value being offered. To purchase the vanilla ice cream cone. If you choose anything else, that is your choice. You may not want to spend more money, but that's a natural consequence of turning down the offer in front of you. You goal is clearly not to spend more money, but it is your choice completely.

In other words, while you do not want to choose hell, you are choosing to be with God, or to be without God. It is a choice.

I completely accept I m choosing not to follow allah, and am choosing not to follow krishna, buddha, etc. I am making it known clearly I am choosing not to do so.

I think it might be other issues there. My own view is that you have an issue with God. Rebellion against Him is something I see quite a bit of in different ways. In my view, if you're non christian, it should matter what a christian thinks about you and hell.

The easiest way I can compare this is to the atheist that comes to a religion forum to try and find fault with religion. If you think something isn't true, it shouldn't matter what they think about said idea.

I bring up the same challenge every time this comes up, but I'll do it one more time because I think it makes the point very well.  If you really, honestly, sincerely believe that this is just a choice, become a muslim for the day.

I choose to say that allah and the qu'ran is not true. I choose not to follow allah.  That's not to say I really want to go to Muslim hell. I don't have to want to go to muslim hell in order to make the choice of not following allah. What someone wants, and what they choose are different things though.

Another comparison. Someone wants fast and easy money. They break the law, and go to jail. What did they want? Did they want fast easy money, or did they want jail. The person says over and over how much they do not want jail. Did they want jail, or s that just a natural consequence of choosing an action that has a consequence.

Given that analolgy, why would you not buy a ticket for any lottery until after the winning number is picked?

I do get that Falkus is stating that no one can know, but that's a false premise. Saying I don't know is not the same thing as saying no one can know. For example, would you agree that if there is evidence, then one can know some of it.

Presumably, we can accept that you don't need to know everything to accept something as true, correct? A good example is evolution. You don't need to prove every piece of information before accepting evolution is true, correct? So let's establish that knowing doesn't not require complete knowledge, but only some knowledge.

In other words, the premise that no one can know is not even verifiable, so to base your belief on something you cannot prove at all in any way is called what?

More to the point, I associate "choosing not to be with God" with a desire not to be with God.  That's what bothers me.  You imply that I'm an atheist because I don't like God, or the idea of God, or something like that.  In reality, it's that I don't think God exists.  Your statement implies intent that isn't there.

I'll try and make it more clear. You go into an ice cream store that has a special price on vanilla ice cream cones. However, while there are many other flavors that you think taste better, you ask for the special price for a different flavor of ice cream cone. The owner says that's not the deal being offered. He makes it known only the vanilla ice cream cone has the special price.

At that point you have the choice. You can accept the deal offered, or refuse it, and take something else, such as another flavor at full price, or just walk away.

Only one choice allows you to take up the value being offered. To purchase the vanilla ice cream cone. If you choose anything else, that is your choice. You may not want to spend more money, but that's a natural consequence of turning down the offer in front of you. You goal is clearly not to spend more money, but it is your choice completely.

Yes, and in such a case I would be entirely okay with you saying I chose not to take the special deal.  But in that case I actually believe that there is a special deal, and choose not to take it.  In that case, it is a choice.

If, however, as I walk into the ice cream store, there's a guy who says "If you pay with a $100 bill, and say 'keep the change', then they give you the cream for free!" and I walk into the store, ask the guy at the counter if it's true and he says "eh?  never heard of that deal, sorry."  I would still choose whether or not I pay with a $100 bill but if I didn't, it wouldn't be choosing not to get the special deal, it'd simply be me not believing the deal was real.  Maybe it was real, and I was wrong.  But the choice I made was my actions, not over to take the deal or not.  Do you see the difference?  In your example, it was purely a matter of do I want the deal, or do I not want the deal.  In this case (which is more like reality), the question isn't whether I want the deal, but whether or not I believe the deal is real.

In other words, while you do not want to choose hell, you are choosing to be with God, or to be without God. It is a choice.

My actions are a choice, which may result in be being with God or going to Hell.  But the consequences are not the same as the choice itself.  I'm not choosing not to be with God, though that may be the result of my choice.  If I actually believed it were a simple issue of be with God/don't be with God, I would choose to be with Him. 

Another analogy:  I say "pick a card, any card!" and hold out a deck of cards, like some magician.  You pick one at random, look at it, and say "I picked the 4 of clubs."  If I say "Ah, too bad.  I you picked the ace of spades, I'd have given you a million dollars!  What a fool you are!  You chose not to have a million dollars!  What a dumb decision!" that'd be somewhat misleading of me.  You didn't choose not to have a million dollars, you just chose what card to pick.  The result was that you didn't get a million dollars, but that wasn't the choice you made.

When you say non-Christians are choosing not to be with God, you're equating the result, with the decision itself, and that implies some level of intent.  You're implying that they don't want to be with God, which is not the case.

I completely accept I m choosing not to follow allah, and am choosing not to follow krishna, buddha, etc. I am making it known clearly I am choosing not to do so.