Monday, December 03, 2018

Does the Bible Really Teach That Hell is Eternal Conscious Torment?

 photo inferno1_zps4fba85df.jpg 
from Gustave Doré's (1832-1883) illustrations of Dante's Inferno 



I do not believe that the Bible actually teaches that hell is a place of eternal conscious torment. By that I mean, hell is not a place where people who sin and disbelieve are sent to be punished and tortured. I don't believe that God would torture anyone. I certainly don't believe that hell is a place where one is conscious eternally. While I do think that hell is judgment I don't think it's a place where people are conscous eternally of being punished.  I think first of all "going to hell" Is a symbol of spiritual death. That it's a judgement in after life, but rather than leading to eternal conscious torment it leads to the total annihilation of existence. I don't believe that everyone is automatically saved.

My thesis is this: (1) The Bible uses the conept of hell as a symbol of judgment and spiritual death.

(2) It is clearly talking about something, some negative consequence from "hell," but that is not a place of literal fire and brimstone, rather, the "place" of torment is a symbol of spiritual death that comes from being judged.

(3) Judgment comes from rejecting God and closing the heart to truth, it is not something God ordained to befall the rebellious, but an automatic separation that we initiate and we have the power to change while we live, by responding to God's love. The more we turn our backs on God and pout the deeper we get into sepeartion and God cannot do anything about it if we are determined to separate ourselves.

(4) When I say "God can't do anything about it," yes could have made the original set up different, but only by sacrificing other things, such as free will, which very important.

thus I am saying God is limited to logical necessity. He cannot make two contradictory states of affairs that truly contradict logically. Thus to have the valuable aspects of free will and moral decision making there must be consequences which we initiate through our rebellion and which God cannot change given the facts. Specifically I believe that those who reject God and die in separation from God cease to exist. That is fair and humane since that's what they expect anyway. The atheist chooses to cease to exist but in disbelieving he expects this anyway. One must agree it is certainly more compassionate than eteranl conscious torment. The talk we find of flames and darkness is symbolic. It is symbolic of the dread of being judged and condemned, and symbolic of spiritual death. I believe the Bible teaches this and we can examine the passages and see for ourselves.


First, there is no such set up in the OT. There is no situation such that good go to heaven to paradise to be rewarded and the bad go to hell to be tormented. This concept was unknown to the Hebrews. It is common knowledge that the Hebrews believed that everyone went to "the pit" orSheol, which is translated "the grave." This is the idea of the realm of the dead. Everyone went there, not as punishment but that's just the way it was. There were exceptions such as prophets who were taken up to heaven to be with God, but basically no one expected the reward of  heaven or the punishment of hell. All that came in this life. The concept of hell came from the Hellenistic culture of the Greeks, imposed upon the Hebrew world in the intertestamental period, though the conquest of the Selucids who succeeded Alexander the Great. But the Hebrews found a corresponding symbol for "tortarus" the Greek Hell, in the valley of Gehenna where they burned trash outside Jerusalem. We know this was a symbol and symbolic use since it was a literal physical place in history. Secondly, I believe that hell is unjust and counter productive. Unjust because eternal torment as punishment for finite sin is just not fair. No amount of sanctimony can make it fair. God would not be unfair. Moreover, counterproductive because no one learns anything form hell. I see atheists all the time expressing the attitude "I'm going to hell anyway so what does it matter?" It's not a good idea and the more I think about it the more like the solution of a small child it seems. It is not taught in the bible so let's get to it and look at the scholarship and see. Some scholars understand Paul to teach that the wicked disappear. I find this in accord with views I had already come to before I found the Bankston article.  Carl L. Bankston, III:

Although the Christian message was, from the beginning, concerned primarily with eternal life, the theme of eternal punishment emerged from apocalyptic Judaism in the pages of the New Testament. Bernstein's reading of the New Testament, however, indicates a diversity of understandings of this punishment among the authors of the Scriptures. Saint Paul, emphasizing the positive teachings of the faith, did not express a clear vision of hell and seems to have implied that the wicked would eventually simply disappear. The authors of the synoptic Gospels, by contrast, describe pains of eternal damnation that balance the joys of eternal salvation.[1] 

My view is grounded in St. Paul. The main overview of Biblical teaching is one of diversity. There is no standarized set of explicit assumptions about the nature of heaven and hell. The ancinet Hebrews did not have that view.

Johnston demonstrates the Hebrew lack of biphercated afterlife:

Finally, Johnston address the question of an Afterlife, a late development in Israelite religious thought. Although Elijah and Elisha bring dead children back to life, Enoch “walked with God” and Elijah ascended in a flaming chariot, none of these were considered normal nor hoped for by others. The only clear references to bodily resurrection occur in Isa 26:19 and Daniel 12:2; extra-biblical references to resurrection (e.g., 2 Macc 7; 14; 1 Enoch 51:1; 61:5; 62:15, 4Q521:12, etc.) date from the 2nd century BCE on, which is consistent with the date of the two biblical texts. Despite afterlife beliefs in the surrounding nations, however, Johnston finds little evidence of direct influence and instead claims that Israel’s eventual belief in an afterlife is rooted in its experience of YHWH’s faithfulness and ongoing presence in their history, eventually understood as extending beyond death itself.[2]
This view is actually pretty standard among scholars. We turn to Bankston again:
I found Bernstein's close reading of the Hebrew Bible and of the Book of Enoch, the major piece of evidence outside the writings of Josephus of a late antique Jewish belief in punishment after death, more original than his review of Greco-Roman ideas. Much of the latter seems to rest on scholarly interpretations that have long been common currency. This may be a matter of familiarity, however, and Bernstein does bring together a great deal of material in a highly readable style, so that almost anyone will find some new ideas and information in the collection of pre-Christian beliefs assembled here.[3]

That says that punishment in after life was an idea the Jews had in late antiquity.We can see from the use of the terminology for "Hell" that the modern concepts with which fundamentalists are imbued and atheists are outraged are just no there. The only word used for "hell" in the OT is Sheol, which does not mean hell and does not correspond to Gehenna, it means "grave." It's death or the place of the dead, not necessarily a place of torment.

Bankston  again:

The most common term for the Underworld itself is Sheol but even it appears infrequently. The term never appears in third person narrative nor legal material, but only in first person contexts: i.e., an individual encounters Sheol directly and personally. Clear synonyms include bôr, bĕʾēr, and šaḥat (all meaning “pit”) and ʾăbaddôn (“destruction”); Johnston also considers a number of texts in which either earth\ground or water may also be synonyms for Sheol but concludes, “Water, like earth, is associated with the underworld, but is not confused with it.” (p. 124). Descriptions of Sheol are sparse, but it is a place where existence simply continued, without any vital experience for the dead. The term itself may have derived from the god Šu-wa-la, mentioned in texts from Emar, who is either a minor underworld deity or another name for Ereshkigal, the Queen of the underworld, but any divine associations had been lost by the Israelite period.[4]

Sheol (OT) translated Hell really means "the Grave."

We can see that Sheol means the grave by the use made of Crosswalk software in its Heberw lexicon.Crosswalk takes its Hebrew from Strongs and Vines. Both are inadequate, but cross walk smooths them out and waters them down even more with interpretive definitions. Thus we can see what I'm talking about in the use they make of words, but they also add their own effects.Crosswalk defition of Sheol

Sh@'owl TWOT - 2303c
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
sheh-ole' Noun Feminine
Definition

1. sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit
1. the underworld
2. Sheol - the OT designation for the abode of the dead
1. place of no return
2. without praise of God
3. wicked sent there for punishment
4. righteous not abandoned to it
5. of the place of exile (fig)
6. of extreme degradation in sin


It does say the grave and abode of the dead but when everything else it says reflects that it adds, wicked sent there for punishment. But it can't produce one verse to say that. There are no verses in the OT that say wicked are sent to sheol for punishment.


For a list of passages using Sheol in the OT go here.

Definition of  Gehenna (hell) in the NT.

on Crosswalk:

Hell is the place of the future punishment call "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire". This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.
Essentially it says it's a symbol. The literal is a valley where they burn garbage.



The first passage seems to be quite literal, but if we consider it a little more in depth we can see it does not support eternal conscious torment. Mt 5:22

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
Hell used figuratively

Jesus is here using hell as a figure of speech, a poetic image, to illustrate the depth of depravity in defaming another human being by calling him "a fool." He builds a progregtion of wrongs and their consequences:

anger with brother: go to court

call brother name: go to supreme court

Call brother a fool: worthy of hell.

Wrong, more wrong, most wrong. Its' a means of illustrating the depth of wickedness in disvaluing others. He does not say in that passage "hell is a real litteral place." doesn't say it's eternal conscious torment.


The next two are in the same context and one is just a reinforcement of the other. They are both symbolic uses and serve to illustrate Jesus' sarcasm toward excuses to sin:

Mt 5:29 "And if your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Mt 5:30 "And if your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to go into hell.


these are both in the same context. The are clearly figurative and hyperbole. It's totally ridiculous to think that Jesus would really command us to cut off our hands or pluck out our eyes to keep from lusting>

The immediate context is about holy living:

17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law R135 or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 "For truly I say to you, until R136 heaven and earth pass away, not the F65 smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others F66 to do the same, shall be called least in R137 the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps F67 and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 "For I say to you that unless your righteousness R138 surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

He's talking about righteousness surpassing the pharisees, but the pharisees were super legalistic and built a fence around the law to assure compliance in the most legalistic fashion. How could anyone be more legalistic then they were? He's not talking about being legalistic, or even literalistic. He says heaven and earth shall pass away before the word of God will. Sot he basic premise with which he deals is living out the word of God. He's concerned with actually keeping the spirit of the law. Go further in context:

Now of course atheists are going to say that he really means this. They will say this is just part of the lunatic nature of religious extremism. AT the very least they will ask, as they always do, how I know it's hyperbolic. How does one ever know when a literary device is used? Many atheists have said to me "It's doesn't say it's a literary devise." Of course not, they never do! You are not supposed to say it, then it wouldn't be a device. Clearly it is because it's absurd to say pluck out your eye or cut off your hand. There's an easier way to tell. What do people say when they try to stop sinning and they can't? "I just can't do this, I can't stop lusting that's just the way I am made." Jesus is saying that is an excuse. You can stop it and if you think that's good excuse then surely its important enough that you should pluck out your eye or cut off your hand. But the point of it is of course that you don't have to do that, you can learn to control yourself if you really want to.

Given the high probability that this is figurative then it's obvious the consequence is also figurative, having the whole body cast into hell fire is figurative.

Mt 10:28 "And do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
He's using the poetic symbolism of hell as the ultimate drama, the ultiamte negative consequence to drive home the point that spiritual power is more important than physical power, that eteranl life is what's important.

Mt 23:15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Using the judgment aspect of hell to drive home the point of the hypocritical nature of the pharisees.

Mt 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?


hell is a sentence. That doesn't make it eternal conscious torment. It is the symbol of spiritual death and the cessation of existence. The hypocrites wont escape the judgment aspects of hell. But that doesn't mean they will experience them eternally.

The same figurative ideas pertain. Jesus other uses of hell in parables such as the sheep and goats of Mat 25:33 also are clearly symbols since they are used in parables which by their nature are figures and symbols.


Not one of those passages says hell is eternal conscious torment. No verse actually says that. No verse in the Bible gives an expository description of what hell is or what it's about.


Tartaro One other words used for hell, Tartaro, or Tartarus in English, from Greek Myth.

Tartaro:Definition


1. the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; it answers to Gehenna of the Jews 2. to thrust down to Tartarus, to hold captive in Tartarus



Only verse used: 2Pe 2:4 "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment;"


2Pete is not authoritative enough to build a whole theology upon. Most scholars believe it is pseudopgraphal, of late origin, and we don't know who wrote it. It either copies a large part fo Jude, or Jude copies it. Neither book shares the weight of the Gospels.

figurative use in James

Jas 3:6 And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell.


I think this is Gehenna. But It's clearly figurative he's speaking figuratively of the tung and comparing it to hell fire. 


[1]Carl L. Bankston, III, "The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds." book review, Commonweal, (May 5 1995). on line version found of Highbeam
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-16932922.html
rom a book review (this review is no located on High beam).

[2]Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 2002. . 288; see also 

Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Volume 5 (2004-2005)

This volume builds upon Johnston’s 1988 Belfast MTh thesis and his 1993 Cambridge PhD dissertation, but constitutes a substantial reworking and expansion of that material. The result is a comprehensive study that is accessible to non-specialists without sacrificing extensive interaction with scholarly literature on the subject. The material itself is organized under four main categories: Death, The Underworld, The Dead and The Afterlife.

[3] Carl L. Bankston, III, "The Formation of Hell:..." op cit.

[4] Ibi
d.

46 comments:

JBsptfn said...

Good article. That's what the late Pastor Murray (from Shepherd's Chapel) basically believed in as well (Matt Slick of CARM disagreed with Murray about that in a critique he did of him).

7th Stooge said...

I think that annihilation is punishment, however, even if one isn't consciously experiencing it.

Joe Hinman said...

I am not agaisnt punishment per se. punishment is justified, just not so out of proportion.

Joe Hinman said...

Good article. That's what the late Pastor Murray (from Shepherd's Chapel) basically believed in as well (Matt Slick of CARM disagreed with Murray about that in a critique he did of him).

good old Matt,

im-skeptical said...

Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. - Revelation 20:13-15

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. - Revelation 20:10

But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. - Revelation 21:8

And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. - Revelation 19:20

If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. - Matthew 18:8

If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. - Mark 9:47-48

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. - Matthew 25:46

and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth - Matthew 13:42

For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. - Deuteronomy 4:24

Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds. - Jeremiah 4:4

Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels - Matthew 25:41

In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. - Luke 16:23

Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. - Nahum 1:6

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment - 2 Peter 2:4


Joe Hinman said...

First you need to be aware that everything in Revelation is metaphor, symbolism, or figure, it's not literal. So we can't look to that as a real overt discussion of actual fact and actual happenings, Those passages cannot prove that hell is literal eternal conscious torment,


Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. - Revelation 20:13-15

I said in my essay that hell is judgement,


And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. - Revelation 20:10

(1)you must prove that it really means eternal that it's not a symbol;

(2) Just because the devil is tormented eternally doesn't mean humans will be,

(3)since the frogs and horsemen and all the other stuff in Revelation is metaphor why isn't satan metaphor?



But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death. - Revelation 21:8

In the first death your body ceases to live, why wouldn't the second death be when your soul ceases to exist? Your reading is actually more metaphorical than mine. You are turning death into a symbol for eternal conciseness,


And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone. - Revelation 19:20

same principles apply


Joe Hinman said...

If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. - Matthew 18:8

most discussion of hell takes place in or around parables,which are symbol. In parables we don't take the birds, weeds,thorns or mustard seeds literally why the flames? Notice this passage is giving a sarcastic answer to an excuse. He's speaking to the one who says I don't want to lust but my eyes just can't stop looking. He doesn't really want you to plus your eye out, so the fire is just part of the extreme aspects of the sarcasm,


If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED. - Mark 9:47-48

same saying same answer

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. - Matthew 25:46

that is the parable of the sheep and the goats, he doesn't really mean real actual sheep go to heaven or real actual goats go to hell,why would the hell set up be literal but the goats going there are not?


and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth - Matthew 13:42

imagery of the same metaphor. like all Hebrew poetry it uses harsh strong images to emphasize the emphatic nature,




For the LORD your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God. - Deuteronomy 4:24


Christians don't worship fire, God is not literally fire. This is a symbol and a lot of people in fact no one doubts that,


Circumcise yourselves to the LORD And remove the foreskins of your heart, Men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Or else My wrath will go forth like fire And burn with none to quench it, Because of the evil of your deeds. - Jeremiah 4:4

doesn't even mention hell we know they did not have that belief in the OT period,


Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels - Matthew 25:41

In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. - Luke 16:23

Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. - Nahum 1:6

For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment - 2 Peter 2:4


all of that is about parables and symbols and really the same ones are being repeated so you are talking about the same two three passages and it's doubles,

im-skeptical said...

OK, Joe. I get it. The bible is full of parables, symbols, ans metaphor. We shouldn't believe that anything it says is literally true. Like all those stories about virgin births, and dead guys getting up and walking, and Jesus dying for our sins - all that stuff. It's all metaphor. Or is it that you pick and choose which parts you want to believe are literally true, and which parts are just metaphor?

Joe Hinman said...

It's not that hard to figure out once you learn something about literature. you spend so long telling yourself science is all there is science is the only form of knowledge you know almost nothing about literature or hermeneutics.

just learn to deal with a text,

im-skeptical said...

You can tell yourself that there's one and only one way to interpret the biblical texts, but you know it's not true. You have to interpret the discrepancies and contradictions as "metaphor", because otherwise it wouldn't support what you believe.

If the lake of fire is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? It obviously alludes to a place of suffering and torment. And that's exactly what Christians believed for most of the past two millennia. In fact, many still do. You still hear it preached in the churches. It's what Dante's Inferno was referring to. But a new crop of religious philosophers have decided that this vision of hell makes God sound too harsh, so they want to turn it into something softer. Now it's merely the "anguish of privation from God's presence". That's not so bad, right? God isn't the monster he was made out to be by all those unsophisticated interpretations of what the bible says. Your own interpretation is the correct one because it fits better with your own views and beliefs.

Don't pretend that you understand hermeneutics any better than I do. You only understand what you want to - if it supports what you believe. You reject reason itself when it suits your purpose.

Joe Hinman said...

Don't pretend that you understand therapeutics any better than I do. You only understand what you want to - if it supports what you believe. You reject reason itself when it suits your purpose.

I am not pretending you dimwit I know therapeutics better than you do. You don't know what the word means. Myh Ph.D. program was an interdisciplinary program in the history of ideas. Hermeneutics was a part of that. I studied in an interdisciplinary program in history of ideas,I doubt you even know what that is.

Joe Hinman said...

You can tell yourself that there's one and only one way to interpret the biblical texts, but you know it's not true. You have to interpret the discrepancies and contradictions as "metaphor", because otherwise it wouldn't support what you believe.

Obviously I never said that, I don't see how you get that. you are talking like you believe in multiple view points but clearly you think your reading is obviously the right one

If the lake of fire is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? It obviously alludes to a place of suffering and torment.

a metaphor of a place can only be another place? that's nonsense.


And that's exactly what Christians believed for most of the past two millennia. In fact, many still do. You still hear it preached in the churches. It's what Dante's Inferno was referring to.

Yes It it was official dogma so what? Christ's birth on Dec 25 is official dogma but it I don't believe that.No reason to think he was born then, they got both ideas,that and Hell,from the Greeks.


But a new crop of religious philosophers have decided that this vision of hell makes God sound too harsh, so they want to turn it into something softer.

revelation is progressive


Now it's merely the "anguish of privation from God's presence". That's not so bad, right? God isn't the monster he was made out to be by all those unsophisticated interpretations of what the bible says. Your own interpretation is the correct one because it fits better with your own views and beliefs.

you are just sore because you are hard up for God hatting material

Joe Hinman said...

Your own interpretation is the correct one because it fits better with your own views and beliefs.

sure. nothing wrong with thinking what makes the most sense is truth. why don;t you break down and actually read my essay ans see the reasons I go by?

im-skeptical said...

sure. nothing wrong with thinking what makes the most sense is truth. why don;t you break down and actually read my essay ans see the reasons I go by?
- Sure, Joe. It's so transparent. Whatever you believe is correct, and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong. Don't bother listening to their argument. Don't try to understand. Just call them stupid. Case closed.

Joe Hinman said...

yes that's really what I said, you are still not dealing with the logic of the arguments,

im-skeptical said...

I gave you a number of biblical passages that speak of eternal punishment and torment. You have provided not a single biblical passage that speaks of "spiritual death", where the soul ceases to exist. This is actually antithetical to the commonly held Christian notion that the soul is eternal. You and those you cite are just making it up. You just don't want to believe what the bible says, so you invent your own version of what it means.

im-skeptical said...

Christian philosophy on the eternal soul -

Origen:
... The soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this ... (cited in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240)

Aquinas:
But the process is not alike of the soul; for man is intelligent, whereas animals are not. Hence it is false to say: "Man has nothing more than beasts." Thus death comes to both alike as to the body, by not as to the soul. (Suma Theologica, Pt 1, Q75, Article 6)

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
I gave you a number of biblical passages that speak of eternal punishment and torment. You have provided not a single biblical passage that speaks of "spiritual death", where the soul ceases to exist.

I dealt with each of them, They are all essentially parables or figurative,pic out any passage about spiritual death because the Greek term used always means complete cessation.

This is actually antithetical to the commonly held Christian notion that the soul is eternal. You and those you cite are just making it up. You just don't want to believe what the bible says, so you invent your own version of what it means.


Your understanding of Christianity is so childishly simplistic,I told you I am not a fundie. Most modern liberals don't believe in hell at all.

Joe Hinman said...

there's another case where you just don't read, I answered each one of those you didn't even know that because you didn't read my answer.

m-skeptical said...
Christian philosophy on the eternal soul -

Origen:
... The soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this ... (cited in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 1995, p. 240)

https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/2016/02/03/christian-views-on-hell-moving-back-to-origen/
"Today, Origen seems to be all the rage. The modern Church has rehabilitated his reputation, and clergy are encouraging us to adopt his beliefs.

Two of Origen’s beliefs concern hell and universalism. Origen held that hell was temporary, akin to a very long-term purgatory, and wrote that there will come a point in eternity when God will accept the population of hell — including Satan — to heaven."

Frederick Norris in The Westminster Handbook to Origen, Origen’s view of apokatastasis
quoted in Calvinist Internationale

"Perhaps Origen felt both carrot and stick were always necessary to move humans toward lives of faith and virtue. He admits that he does not know whether the fires of hell will last forever or not. He thinks that they might be temporary and remedial punishments for souls. One could not know in advance which audience would be most likely to accept the gospel, because of the hope engendered by God’s overpowering love or because of the fear stimulated by God’s threat of hell coupled with God’s demand for ethical living. Most audiences of hearers or readers include both groups; knowing this, Origen the pastoral preacher probably kept his view of salvation economically ‘open’ for a greater effectiveness. 1"

Aquinas:
But the process is not alike of the soul; for man is intelligent, whereas animals are not. Hence it is false to say: "Man has nothing more than beasts." Thus death comes to both alike as to the body, by not as to the soul. (Suma Theologica, Pt 1, Q75, Article 6)


that just says we aren't animals so we don't just die when we leave this life, I never said we did, that's a s stupid simplification of my position.

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

I dealt with each of them, They are all essentially parables or figurative,pic out any passage about spiritual death because the Greek term used always means complete cessation.
- Your way of dealing with the passages I cited is to merely assert that your own interpretation is correct. In fact your whole article does nothing more than that. You never present any actual logical argumentation it support that assertion, and more importantly, you never present any biblical references that agree with your belief. All you dos is say "this is the way to read it", and you cite others who say the same thing. What's missing is any reason to accept your view, other than your assertion that it's the correct interpretation.

Your understanding of Christianity is so childishly simplistic,I told you I am not a fundie. Most modern liberals don't believe in hell at all.
- My understanding is based on what the bible says. Because I am not constrained by ideology (as you are) to interpret it in a way that is not consistent with the words. The bible actually tells us it is agonizing torment, and it is eternal. You say that's metaphor. But why would they use that as a metaphor for something that is neither torment, nor eternal? That just doesn't make sense. If they want to use a metaphor, they should choose one that conveys a concept of what they are talking about. This is something you have completely failed to explain.

Origen held that hell was temporary.
- And yet his own that words I quoted say it's eternal. Should I believe what he says in his own words, or what you tell me about what he says?

that just says we aren't animals so we don't just die when we leave this life, I never said we did, that's a s stupid simplification of my position.
- It says the body dies, but the soul doesn't. THAT's what Aquinas is telling us, no matter how hard you try to twist it into something different.

Joe Hinman said...

JoeI dealt with each of them, They are all essentially parables or figurative,pic out any passage about spiritual death because the Greek term used always means complete cessation.

Skep- Your way of dealing with the passages I cited is to merely assert that your own interpretation is correct. In fact your whole article does nothing more than that. You never present any actual logical argumentation it support that assertion, and more importantly, you never present any biblical references that agree with your belief.

That is jut what I did! I showed why each argument failed.pick one you think I didn't answer,

example: You: And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. - Revelation 20:10

Me:
(1)you must prove that it really means eternal that it's not a symbol;

(2) Just because the devil is tormented eternally doesn't mean humans will be,

(3)since the frogs and horsemen and all the other stuff in Revelation is metaphor why isn't satan metaphor?

you didn't answer my analysis,

All you dos is say "this is the way to read it", and you cite others who say the same thing. What's missing is any reason to accept your view, other than your assertion that it's the correct interpretation.

I have a Masters degree in theology from a major seminary and you don't,


Me:Your understanding of Christianity is so childishly simplistic,I told you I am not a fundie. Most modern liberals don't believe in hell at all.


- My understanding is based on what the bible says.

exactly--not sophisticated or up to snuff with theological teaching:


Because I am not constrained by ideology (as you are) to interpret it in a way that is not consistent with the words. The bible actually tells us it is agonizing torment, and it is eternal. You say that's metaphor. But why would they use that as a metaphor for something that is neither torment, nor eternal? That just doesn't make sense. If they want to use a metaphor, they should choose one that conveys a concept of what they are talking about. This is something you have completely failed to explain.

that is total BS you are extremeness ideological for scientism and atheism



Joe Hinman said...

Origen held that hell was temporary.

- And yet his own that words I quoted say it's eternal. Should I believe what he says in his own words, or what you tell me about what he says?

I quoted two expert sources you have no expertise you are naively assuming that all writing can be understood literally and verbatim.


[Aquinas passage]that just says we aren't animals so we don't just die when we leave this life, I never said we did, that's a s stupid simplification of my position.


- It says the body dies, but the soul doesn't. THAT's what Aquinas is telling us, no matter how hard you try to twist it into something different.


I also pointed out that he is not the Bible Aquinas can be wrong, Besides the passage you quoted does not deal Judgement of those who die at odds with God,It;s just speaking if humans generally,

im-skeptical said...

(1)you must prove that it really means eternal that it's not a symbol;
- you didn't answer my question. What is it a symbol for? If they didn't mean eternal, then why did they say eternal?

(2) Just because the devil is tormented eternally doesn't mean humans will be,
- It's the same place where they send people. That's what it says.

(3)since the frogs and horsemen and all the other stuff in Revelation is metaphor why isn't satan metaphor?
- Metaphors have meaning. So what do they mean when they say fire that is never quenched, and eternal torment? It sure doesn't sound like what you are describing. There is not a single place in the bible that says what you are telling me.

exactly--not sophisticated or up to snuff with theological teaching
- You think the people who wrote those passages were "sophisticated"? They were trying to recruit believers from among the downtrodden and ignorant populace. They used the carrot-and-stick approach, and it worked. There's nothing sophisticated about it.

that is total BS you are extremeness ideological for scientism and atheism
- I understand what metaphor is and how it is used. Obviously, you don't. Metaphor conveys a meaning. "A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas." - Wiki Do you get it? Metaphor clarifies meaning and identifies similarities. It isn't just some random words that say something completely different from the meaning it is supposed to convey. 'Eternal' is not a suitable metaphor for something that comes to an end. 'Fire and brimstone' is not a suitable metaphor for something that involves no suffering.

you are naively assuming that all writing can be understood literally and verbatim.
- I assume that Origen was NOT speaking in metaphor. He meant what he said.

I also pointed out that he is not the Bible Aquinas can be wrong, Besides the passage you quoted does not deal Judgement of those who die at odds with God,It;s just speaking if humans generally
- Here's another quote from Aquinas:
In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned ... So that they may be urged the more to praise God ... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens ... to the damned

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
(1)you must prove that it really means eternal that it's not a symbol;


- you didn't answer my question. What is it a symbol for? If they didn't mean eternal, then why did they say eternal?

symbol for spiritual death and judgement.

(2) Just because the devil is tormented eternally doesn't mean humans will be,

- It's the same place where they send people. That's what it says.

It's not a place it;s a state of being,

(3)since the frogs and horsemen and all the other stuff in Revelation is metaphor why isn't satan metaphor?

- Metaphors have meaning. So what do they mean when they say fire that is never quenched, and eternal torment? It sure doesn't sound like what you are describing. There is not a single place in the bible that says what you are telling me.

A symbol of spiritual death and judgement those are final. the state of being judged is eternal and never ending,irreversible. Cession to exist is irreversible,forever,eternal. hell is not eternal ""conscious torment" but that doesn't mean it's not eternal,

exactly--not sophisticated or up to snuff with theological teaching

- You think the people who wrote those passages were "sophisticated"? They were trying to recruit believers from among the downtrodden and ignorant populace. They used the carrot-and-stick approach, and it worked. There's nothing sophisticated about it.

No modern theologians are sophisticated.The fishermen Jesus recited were not sophisticated, that was good because they needed that working class blunt force truth at that time. We need sophisticated now because things are more complex. Don't get me wrong, we need the working class blunt truth too but we need it in a package that can also handle complex.

Joe Hinman said...

that is total BS you are extremeness ideological for scientism and atheism

- I understand what metaphor is and how it is used. Obviously, you don't. Metaphor conveys a meaning. "A metaphor is a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by mentioning another. It may provide clarity or identify hidden similarities between two ideas."

you googled that definition didn't you? you need Christianity to be stupid and unfair and you agitated and angry and Clarendon when it isn't, so you have a big vested interest in not thinking about what I'm saying I just explained why my metaphors are meaningful.


- Wiki Do you get it? Metaphor clarifies meaning and identifies similarities. It isn't just some random words that say something completely different from the meaning it is supposed to convey. 'Eternal' is not a suitable metaphor for something that comes to an end. 'Fire and brimstone' is not a suitable metaphor for something that involves no suffering.

You are don't know what you are talking about, stop blowing steam because your justification for hating God is being removed and think about what is being said! The Biblical authors did not search their brains for metaphors that would be parallel to cessation then came up with eternal firer. They were handed the concept by their culture. The Hebrews took it from the Greeks, that was imposed upon their thinking. It was already a part of their culture although fallaciously. So Jesus used it in parables because it spoke to them in certain ways (I've already demonstrated that in the passage about plucking out your eye). The image of the lake of fire the assumption it carries in Jewish thought made a powerful image for spiritual death and the finality of judgement, That doesn't mean the conscious part has to eternal.

you are naively assuming that all writing can be understood literally and verbatim.

- I assume that Origen was NOT speaking in metaphor. He meant what he said.

what make Orion the big authority? I quoted two experts who say he did not believe in eternal hell,


I also pointed out that he is not the Bible Aquinas can be wrong, Besides the passage you quoted does not deal Judgement of those who die at odds with God,It;s just speaking if humans generally

- Here's another quote from Aquinas:
In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned ... So that they may be urged the more to praise God ... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens ... to the damned

at the end of his life he daid "all I have written is as straw."


Skep why do you just one guy not in the Bible is the big know all authority on something?

im-skeptical said...

symbol for spiritual death and judgement.
- Why didn't they choose a symbol that gives a sense of what they mean?

It's not a place it;s a state of being
- The point is that wicked people suffer the same fate.

A symbol of spiritual death and judgement those are final. the state of being judged is eternal and never ending,irreversible. Cession to exist is irreversible,forever,eternal. hell is not eternal ""conscious torment" but that doesn't mean it's not eternal
- Why didn't they choose a symbol that gives a sense of what they mean?

No modern theologians are sophisticated.
- Modern philosophers are more likely to recognize the contradictions and absurdities in the bible. So when they want to make sense of something that makes no sense, they find ways to rationalize it. One such way is to declare that a passage they disagree with is "just metaphor".

you googled that definition didn't you?
- I cited where I got it from. It says what I've been telling you, and what you should already know about the definition of 'metaphor'. The definition of 'metaphor' is NOT "a way to explain away words when you disagree with what they say".

You are don't know what you are talking about
- You always rant and rave about citing sources for what I say, and when I do, you still claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.

what make Orion the big authority? I quoted two experts who say he did not believe in eternal hell
- Origen is one of the earliest Christian theologians and founding fathers of your religion, and his concepts are clearly more in line with that biblical texts than your more recent "experts" who just make up their own interpretation of what the bible says, against the long tradition that Christians always had (and many still do).

Skep why do you just one guy not in the Bible is the big know all authority on something?
- It's not just one guy. And why do you reject the long-standing tradition in favor of some new guy who claims to know better?

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
symbol for spiritual death and judgement.

- Why didn't they choose a symbol that gives a sense of what they mean?

You have not got the slightest idea how witting works, they use what;s meaningful to the people they are writing for. Only your ignorance that leads you to think it doesn't work,

It's not a place it;s a state of being

- The point is that wicked people suffer the same fate.

circular reasoning, you only think it should say that because you already buy into the misconception



A symbol of spiritual death and judgement those are final. the state of being judged is eternal and never ending,irreversible. Cession to exist is irreversible,forever,eternal. hell is not eternal ""conscious torment" but that doesn't mean it's not eternal

- Why didn't they choose a symbol that gives a sense of what they mean?

that gives a sense of what they mean open your little unread head,

No modern theologians are sophisticated.

- Modern philosophers are more likely to recognize the contradictions and absurdities in the bible. So when they want to make sense of something that makes no sense, they find ways to rationalize it. One such way is to declare that a passage they disagree with is "just metaphor".

you don't know shit about theology,or how theologians work, you are too narrow minded to learn,

you googled that definition didn't you?
- I cited where I got it from. It says what I've been telling you, and what you should already know about the definition of 'metaphor'. The definition of 'metaphor' is NOT "a way to explain away words when you disagree with what they say".

you do not know shit about metaphor. ignorant little illiterate yokel

You are don't know what you are talking about

- You always rant and rave about citing sources for what I say, and when I do, you still claim that I don't know what I'm talking about.

what make Orion the big authority? I quoted two experts who say he did not believe in eternal hell
- Origen is one of the earliest Christian theologians and founding fathers of your religion,

He is not a founding father he is not considered an apostolic father and he was declared heretical,you don;t know shit aboiut him, Your quote was disproved by the expert I quoted,


and his concepts are clearly more in line with that biblical texts than your more recent "experts" who just make up their own interpretation of what the bible says, against the long tradition that Christians always had (and many still do).

NO BIBLICAL TEXT SAYS HELL IS ETERNAL CONSCIOUS TORMENT IDIOT, ALL THE PASSAGES ABOUT IT ARE IN PARABLE OR SYMBOLIC. JESUS PARABLES AND REVELATION THAT;S 90% OF the PASSAGES ABOUTT IT. YOU ARE JUST ASSERTING POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS AND ONLY BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HATE God,

Skep why do you just one guy not in the Bible is the big know all authority on something?



- It's not just one guy. And why do you reject the long-standing tradition in favor of some new guy who claims to know better?

Oit's two iys, the problem is you cant tyink for yourself, you are a narriow minded little sheep c

10:19 AM

im-skeptical said...

No modern theologians are sophisticated.The fishermen Jesus recited were not sophisticated, that was good because they needed that working class blunt force truth at that time. We need sophisticated now because things are more complex. Don't get me wrong, we need the working class blunt truth too but we need it in a package that can also handle complex.
- “Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” That means you, Joe.

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

You have not got the slightest idea how witting works, they use what;s meaningful to the people they are writing for. Only your ignorance that leads you to think it doesn't work
- I told you they used what works. Recall that I said: "They used the carrot-and-stick approach, and it worked." It was not supposed to be sophisticated. It was for gullible people.

circular reasoning, you only think it should say that because you already buy into the misconception
- I read the words as they are written. You think it should say something different, so you make up your own meaning.

that gives a sense of what they mean open your little unread head
- It gives a sense of eternal suffering, which is exactly what most Christians have believed all along.

you don't know shit about theology,or how theologians work, you are too narrow minded to learn
- My mind is nor closed like yours is. You only hear one view. You never listen to anything else.

you do not know shit about metaphor. ignorant little illiterate yokel
- I use Donald trump as a metaphor for you. The way you two think and argue is so much alike.

He is not a founding father he is not considered an apostolic father and he was declared heretical,you don;t know shit aboiut him, Your quote was disproved by the expert I quoted
- "Origen is a Church Father[13][14][15][16] and is widely regarded as one of the most important Christian theologians of all time.[17]" Quoted from Wikipedia, with citations from four different experts, including a modern pope.

NO BIBLICAL TEXT SAYS HELL IS ETERNAL CONSCIOUS TORMENT IDIOT, ALL THE PASSAGES ABOUT IT ARE IN PARABLE OR SYMBOLIC. JESUS PARABLES AND REVELATION THAT;S 90% OF the PASSAGES ABOUTT IT. YOU ARE JUST ASSERTING POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS AND ONLY BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HATE God
- I don't believe any of that crap. But the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived do believe it, including highly influential theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas, who you refer to as "some guy". You are truly an idiot.

Joe Hinman said...

- “Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” That means you, Joe.

that refers to an attitude of trust in getting saved, I am saved already,I;not talking aboijt getting saved I'm talking about theological understanding,

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger im-skeptical said...
You have not got the slightest idea how witting works, they use what;s meaningful to the people they are writing for. Only your ignorance that leads you to think it doesn't work
- I told you they used what works. Recall that I said: "They used the carrot-and-stick approach, and it worked." It was not supposed to be sophisticated. It was for gullible people.

that's your atheist cynicism in assuming it's about control and not enlightenment,

circular reasoning, you only think it should say that because you already buy into the misconception
- I read the words as they are written. You think it should say something different, so you make up your own meaning.

no you haven't because no words say "Hell is eternal conscious torment," they do not say that,the words that imply it are in parable, you have not given one example of one passage that's not

that gives a sense of what they mean open your little unread head

- It gives a sense of eternal suffering, which is exactly what most Christians have believed all along.

only communicated in passages related to parables,

you don't know shit about theology,or how theologians work, you are too narrow minded to learn

- My mind is nor closed like yours is. You only hear one view. You never listen to anything else.

your mind is clearly closed to what I'm saying here,

you do not know shit about metaphor. ignorant little illiterate yokel

- I use Donald trump as a metaphor for you. The way you two think and argue is so much alike.

not cleaver, how cleaver is it OT know that comparison me to someone I work against every day is instituting, wow what a genius,

He is not a founding father he is not considered an apostolic father and he was declared heretical,you don;t know shit aboiut him, Your quote was disproved by the expert I quoted


- "Origen is a Church Father[13][14][15][16] and is widely regarded as one of the most important Christian theologians of all time.[17]" Quoted from Wikipedia, with citations from four different experts, including a modern pope.

he was at the end of the second century he never knew any apostates or even those who knew apostles, sure he's import at n but it;s not like any he says has t obe accepted. besides he agreed with me about hell.

NO BIBLICAL TEXT SAYS HELL IS ETERNAL CONSCIOUS TORMENT IDIOT, ALL THE PASSAGES ABOUT IT ARE IN PARABLE OR SYMBOLIC. JESUS PARABLES AND REVELATION THAT;S 90% OF the PASSAGES ABOUTT IT. YOU ARE JUST ASSERTING POPULAR MISCONCEPTIONS AND ONLY BECAUSE YOU NEED TO HATE God

- I don't believe any of that crap. But the vast majority of Christians who have ever lived do believe it, including highly influential theologians like Saint Thomas Aquinas, who you refer to as "some guy". You are truly an idiot.

that's something you are totally misguided in your thinking. theologians do not expect theology students to believe the most famous guy because of his reputation,what a major theologian thinks is not mandatory and an article of faith

12:46 PM Delete

Joe Hinman said...

"Those theological symbols, heaven and hell, are not crudely understood as spatial destinations but rather refer to the experience of God's presence according to two different modes." Thinking Through Faith: New Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars page 195 By Aristotle Papanikolaou, Elizabeth H. Prodromou



Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

"On First Principles, which is the most systematic and philosophical of Origen's numerous writings. In this work Origen establishes his main doctrines, including that of the Holy Trinity (based upon standard Middle Platonic triadic emanation schemas); the pre-existence and fall of souls; multiple ages and transmigration of souls; and the eventual restoration of all souls to a state of dynamic perfection in proximity to the godhead."

Origen did not believe in the eternal suffering of sinners in hell. For him, all souls, including the devil himself, will eventually achieve salvation, even if it takes innumerable ages to do so; for Origen believed that God's love is so powerful as to soften even the hardest heart, and that the human intellect - being the image of God - will never freely choose oblivion over proximity to God, the font of Wisdom Himself."


Britanica speaking of Origen's view

"Hell cannot be an absolute since God cannot abandon any creature; ..."

every interpirater reads Origen as I do

Joe Hinman said...

Christian views on hell: moving back to Origen | Churchmouse ...
https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.../christian-views-on-hell-moving-back-to-orige...


"Origen held that hell was temporary, akin to a very long-term purgatory, ... Origen also believed in the pre-existence of souls, which is a form of ..."

https://reforminghell.com/tag/origen/

"What do you think about some of the Early Church Fathers? What do you think about Gregory of Nyssa and Origen, for example? Who both appear to hold to Universal Salvation. What’s your view on that?"

It's really well known that he thought this Skep I learned it in seminary

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160513-theology-hell-history-christianity/
Nat Geo says "The Campaign to Eliminate Hell
A new generation of evangelical scholars are challenging the idea that sinners are doomed to eternal torment—but traditionalists are pushing back."
gyess who they cite? Origen!

Joe Hinman said...

that same Nat Geo article

"Over the last 20 years, the number of Americans who believe in the fiery down under has dropped from 71 percent to 58 percent. Heaven, by contrast, fares much better and, among Christians, remains an almost universally accepted concept."

Origen – Reforming Hell
https://reforminghell.com/tag/origen/
Four Views on Hell? Origen? Torture? Is Everyone A Child Of God?—William Cavanaugh ... What do you think about Gregory of Nyssa and Origen, for example?

im-skeptical said...

You provided lots of people saying what they think Origen believed. You didn't quote Origen himself. I did. This is what he says:
"
The soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this
"

THE SOUL WILL BE DELIVERED UP TO ETERNAL FIRE AND PUNISHMENTS. These are his own words.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger im-skeptical said...
You provided lots of people saying what they think Origen believed. You didn't quote Origen himself. I did. This is what he says:

they all have academic credentials, You are quoting a translation,
"
The soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this
"

THE SOUL WILL BE DELIVERED UP TO ETERNAL FIRE AND PUNISHMENTS. These are his own words.



Doesn;t say it will stay there forever, Besides when all is said and done just one guy;s pinon,

JANUARY 2, 2016 BY JACOB MCMILLEN
http://www.brazenchurch.com/how-hell-invaded-church-doctrine/

"For instance, many Christians insist that if you question hell, you are rejecting what has always been agreed upon by the Church, yet the doctrine of eternal torment was not a widely held view for the first five centuries after Christ, particularly in the early Eastern Church, the Church of the early apostles and Church fathers such as Paul, Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, and others."


It's really well known that Origen did not believe sinners went to hell eternally That is so famoius it was tauht in seminary that;s whY I always liked him. his view is famous for this"


https://www3.dbu.edu/jeanhumphreys/DeathDying/fourhells.htm

"Universalism: Origen (182 - 251 CE) taught that the unsaved are tortured in Hell temporarily, with a series of graded punishments, until they are sufficiently cleansed to be accepted into Heaven. This is the historical Universalist belief. It was condemned as a heresy. It formed a major part of the beliefs of the Universalist church (now merged into the Unitarian Universalist Association). Everyone is eventually saved and is welcomed into heaven."

Joe Hinman said...

there is a formal term for Origen's endocrine of universal salvation: "apokatastasis"



Ilaria Ramelli



"In Origen’s thought, the doctrine of apokatastasis is interwoven with his anthropology, eschatology, theology, philosophy of history, theodicy, and exegesis; for anyone who takes Origen’s thought seriously and with a deep grasp of it, it is impossible to separate the apokatastasis theory from all the rest, so as to reject it but accept the rest. Eusebius was an admirer of Origen and a follower of his thought; [1] this is also why he, significantly, chose to present himself as “Eusebius of Pamphilus”—that is, as the spiritual child of the strenuous defender of Origen, marking his adherence to the Origenian tradition. This, too, is probably why Eusebius always endeavored to avoid dealing with eschatology, and in particular with the doctrine of apokatastasis. His seems to have been a cautious move. However, upon close scrutiny, Eusebius does reveal his penchant for the doctrine of apokatastasis—a tendency not generally recognized by scholars [2] —in a few passages, especially those where he is commenting on 1 Cor 15:24–28. Here, Origen’s influence is palpable, just as it is on Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, and Evagrius, all of them supporters of the apokatastasis doctrine, and on Gregory Nazianzen. [3] It is natural that it is so, in that 1 Cor 15:28 announces the final submission of all creatures to Christ and Christ’s submission to God, who will be “all in all.” This was indeed one of the strongest New Testament testimonia in support of the doctrine of apokatastasis.


support of the doctrine of apokatastasis.

Joe Hinman said...

the man himnself

"There is a resurrection of the dead, and there is punishment, but not everlasting. For when the body is punished the soul is gradually purified, and so is restored to its ancient rank. For all wicked men, and for daemons, too, shall be restored to their former rank" (Origen, On First Principles 146).[1]

im-skeptical said...

Regarding the beliefs of Origen:

It seems he espoused different views at different times. One was the official view of the church. The other was his doctrine of "apokatastasis". It is the latter that earned him the accusation of heresy. It should be noted that the view of the church is, and has always been that damnation is eternal. See here: On eternal punishment

It should be understood that there are different schools of thought on eternal punishment. Yes, as you point out, some can't bring themselves to believe that God would be so unjust. Like Origen, they have developed their own philosophical views, involving temporal punishment, followed by remission. Indeed, even the Catholic church has such a doctrine, which is known as purgatory. It should be noted, however, that the church doctrine still holds that eternal punishment is in store for those whose sin is of sufficient gravity. See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Hell. Note also that this doctrine is officially espoused in the Athanasian Creed: "They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire".

Joe, this is NOT metaphor. It has been, and still is, the official stance of the church. And it has been the view held by the vast majority of Christians, as I have been telling you, despite your "experts" opinions.

Joe Hinman said...

Suddenly an expert on Christian belief,the little atheist known as "slepie" dictates the faith to the faithful saying:

Joe, this is NOT metaphor. It has been, and still is, the official stance of the church. And it has been the view held by the vast majority of Christians, as I have been telling you, despite your "experts" opinions.


I don't know who made you Pope but the Catholics made JPII pope he says you are wrong

John Paul II:
"The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033)."[http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999.html]

Not a place but a state of being that makes the flames and the torment a metaphor. The reality is separation from God but it does not say it is conscious exasperation. Annihilator is separation. It is eternal.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger im-skeptical said...
Regarding the beliefs of Origen:

It seems he espoused different views at different times. One was the official view of the church. The other was his doctrine of "apokatastasis". It is the latter that earned him the accusation of heresy. It should be noted that the view of the church is, and has always been that damnation is eternal. See here: On eternal punishment

That is completely inline with what I said about him, I also means he is not some kind of ultimate authority I don't have to agree with him,

Joe Hinman said...

Skepy you are really mixed up about what constitutes authority in Christianity and what one must agree with. You are such a fundie, Atheist usually are. your rebellion against God is predicated upon your mixed up idea about what one must believe.No creed spells out what one must be believe about hell.


It should be understood that there are different schools of thought on eternal punishment.

Ho kidding! bit it;s not ok if I adhere to one of them? Atheists are such fundies, you say you don't believe in God but you sure believe there is only one way to think about God


Yes, as you point out, some can't bring themselves to believe that God would be so unjust. Like Origen, they have developed their own philosophical views, involving temporal punishment, followed by remission. Indeed, even the Catholic church has such a doctrine, which is known as purgatory. It should be noted, however, that the church doctrine still holds that eternal punishment is in store for those whose sin is of sufficient gravity.


annihilation is eternal punishment,you don;t come back into existence,


See the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Hell. Note also that this doctrine is officially espoused in the Athanasian Creed: "They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire".

Athanasian Creed is pretty late in the process.The
Apostle's Creed and Decreed are the one's I really take seriously

Skep are you not aware that I'm a protestant?

im-skeptical said...

I don't know who made you Pope but the Catholics made JPII pope he says you are wrong
- I cited the official doctrine of the Catholic church, one dead pope notwithstanding. Obviously (as I have said), there are different schools of thought on what divine punishment is. But don't try to tell me that YOUR position is the one true position. Even JPII would agree that it's eternal.

That is completely inline with what I said about him, I also means he is not some kind of ultimate authority I don't have to agree with him
- No, it isn't. When I mentioned Origen, your comment was that he was a heretic. But it was his theory that punishment isn't eternal that made him a heretic - because it disagrees with the position of the church.

annihilation is eternal punishment,you don;t come back into existence
- No, it isn't. How something that doesn't exist be punished? That's really shallow thinking, Joe.

Athanasian Creed is pretty late in the process.The Apostle's Creed and Decreed are the one's I really take seriously
- It is still the doctrine of the church.

Skep are you not aware that I'm a protestant?
- You cite Catholics and their doctrines whenever it suits your purpose. The reason I cite church doctrine is twofold: 1) You say that is not what Christians believe, and I can show you that you are wrong. 2) You say this view is unsophisticated, and I say they created this doctrine in the first place, and your position comes afterward, in opposition to it. Take it up with them.

Joe Hinman said...


Blogger im-skeptical said...
I don't know who made you Pope but the Catholics made JPII pope he says you are wrong

- I cited the official doctrine of the Catholic church, one dead pope notwithstanding. Obviously (as I have said), there are different schools of thought on what divine punishment is. But don't try to tell me that YOUR position is the one true position. Even JPII would agree that it's eternal.

there is no official doctrine on that point,and again,I'm not a Catholic

That is completely inline with what I said about him, I also means he is not some kind of ultimate authority I don't have to agree with him

- No, it isn't. When I mentioned Origen, your comment was that he was a heretic. But it was his theory that punishment isn't eternal that made him a heretic - because it disagrees with the position of the church.

Not exactly, his view is not the same as mine,his view was that all will be saved, my view is that those who are not saved will cease to exist and they wont feel the tormentor forever but they will feel some torment,


annihilation is eternal punishment,you don;t come back into existence

- No, it isn't. How something that doesn't exist be punished? That's really shallow thinking, Joe.

punishment doens't have to be conscious, the punishment is to cease existing

you do not have any kind of authority to back up your nonsense,


Athanasian Creed is pretty late in the process.The Apostle's Creed and Decreed are the one's I really take seriously
- It is still the doctrine of the church.

you must have been raised a catholic you have an old fashioner and exaggerated view of what Christianity is about,

Skep are you not aware that I'm a protestant?


- You cite Catholics and their doctrines whenever it suits your purpose.

not as ultimate airworthiness

The reason I cite church doctrine is twofold: 1) You say that is not what Christians believe, and I can show you that you are wrong. 2) You say this view is unsophisticated, and I say they created this doctrine in the first place, and your position comes afterward, in opposition to it. Take it up with them.


I did say I know a lot of Christians do blivet it and I said I know it;s (mkne) a minority view, you dohn't know what makes a view theologically valid you have no thirty to speak of the church you don;t know God,

8:55 AM Delete