HELL
- Thread starter tek
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
C
Perhaps, instead of reading between the lines, read what is said. The mind of Christ would not say that He saw corruption. That mind would say that He delived the righteous dead, not the wicked dead. It is not my place to say if you do or do not have that mind. But, that mind would not say that Christ knew corruption.
This is good, because we can stand beside each other as we all should instead of face to face.
Our only apparent difference in interpretation being the identification of the sin and the sinner, "individuals" vs. "natures"
I want to offer a way to reconcile the apparent contradiction that man is appointed once to die, yet there is a second death mentioned. Because we might not think about it, but we read both of those things regularly and might only question them with "hmm... oh well..."
I totally understand before I say this, that I can be accused of reading between the lines, but we all read between the lines because we all search for the meaning. It is my only defense that I feel like putting my brain or fingers to at the moment, but fairly, I point this out. Every man's words about God should be scrutinized and discerned, and from my perspective, since I am accountable for every idle one, I must submit myself first, before others, as having spoken words to be taken with caution.
I say caution, because having such an understanding as I will present, brings much ridicule and condemnation from the modern church, yet it does not come with any intent of diluting the need for salvation.
Likewise, I seek not to ridicule or condemn anyone with a contrary understanding, because as called, I fish, not hunt. I dangle a delicious hook and sit back and watch, not chase down and inject an arrow.
The only "credit" that I ask, is to notice that I don't say rude things to people to defend my stance or as if to spit on them. People who engage in such are not behaving like Christ. I do not call my brothers vipers.
(though I might call an deceitful group of teachers a den of them)
Though scripture doesn't say it quite outright (or maybe it does lost in translation?) I don't know, but...
What if the passage about "once to die", which uses Jesus as an example, actually is saying that after a man dies the first time, of his "two", comes his judgment?
IF this is the case, then let's consider the two deaths we must all die, a physical death, and an inner death to self, the latter of which basically equates to repentance, yielding "born again"
Now, assuming that we all die twice, and after our first death comes our judgment, we have two possible scenarios:
1. The man dies physically first, is resurrected way in the future before the throne, judged, and cast into the second spiritual death. (Dies bodily, later fixed in the heart)
2. The man dies spiritually first, is resurrected immediately before the throne (born again), judged now (saved), and eventually cast into his necessary second physical death, then resurrected physically. (Fixed in the heart, then dies bodily)
In this way, I see that Jesus, as illustrated in the rest of the "die once" passage, did die to self and was made new without sin. (I believe in the case of Jesus, He was born in this "dead" state, sinless, considering that for God to even subject Himself to our lowly flesh constitutes a first death.)
He died once spiritually, and His second and physical death indeed had no power over Him, as illustrated in His resurrection, and one of the letters in Revelation, saying that to him who overcomes, the second death has no power. Furthermore, I see this concept being compatible with the statement that the dead in Christ shall rise. Those who died to self and followed Jesus, whether it be people in the past, or end time followers who reject and become beheaded by the beast, are physically resurrected from their second and physical death, on the last day, and caught up into the air, just like their master Jesus.
Contrarily, I see that the unrepentant, those who do not die first spiritually, suffer their first death as physical, and their second death is the lake of fire, which, by way of dis-embraced correction, does have power over them. The power to fix regardless.
To reiterate, I'm suggesting that we all either:
1. Die to self, by sacrificially casting ourselves into a corrective lake of fire now, a first death for us (through Christ of course) having power over it rather than it having power over us.
Then die physically unto resurrection on the last day, our second death that (again, because of the resurrecting power of Christ's second coming) also has no power over us.
2. Die physically, having not repented, a physical death that because they have no power in Christ, does not resurrect them when He returns. It has power over them.
Then die spiritually because of the power that the unwanted lake of fire executes against them.
2 deaths each with no power
vs.
2 deaths each having power
2 deaths for each of us, as a required double witness to our entire life's works.
When we bake our bread (interpret the harvest), we might fuel the fire with man's dung (what a man rejects)
Or we might fuel the fire with ox dung (what a yoke pulling living sacrifice rejects)
And Yeshua breaks the harvest interpretation when He gives it to His disciples.
The common harvest interpretation, now broken, identifies His body (His Church)
And interestingly, the bread which He broke was specifically represented by the word for regular leavened bread (artos), in contradiction by the same author, that it was a feast of unleavened bread (azumos). They ate the meal on the first day of passover, not the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. They ate a day earlier than everyone else. (Ergo, the need for His disciples to have an explanation as to what they were doing as they went to prepare the meal "today" rather than for "tomorrow") The unleavened bread was eaten by everyone else as normal, the night after His crucifixion.
A little bit leavens the lump, and this leavened lump is what Jesus broke.
Chow down!
12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
13 And YHWH said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, to which point I will drive them. (the reason becomes obvious, to correct with the experience of irony)
14 Then said I, Ah YHWH Elohim! Behold (please look!), my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
15 Then He said unto me, Lo (surprise!), I have given thee ox's dung instead of man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
The scariest thing about the lake of fire to me, would be knowing that if a person avoids it, they will have made it into paradise with all of their "identity" intact, because they were made acceptable through their faith in Christ.
But those who pass through the lake of fire, will have parts of their identity burned out of them and destroyed, a permanent loss! Whether this means memories, personality traits, or whatever, I shy away from further scary contemplation.
"we" become different people and remain ourselves
"they" remain their selves and become different people
He says He restores all things.
Peace!
Our only apparent difference in interpretation being the identification of the sin and the sinner, "individuals" vs. "natures"
I want to offer a way to reconcile the apparent contradiction that man is appointed once to die, yet there is a second death mentioned. Because we might not think about it, but we read both of those things regularly and might only question them with "hmm... oh well..."
I totally understand before I say this, that I can be accused of reading between the lines, but we all read between the lines because we all search for the meaning. It is my only defense that I feel like putting my brain or fingers to at the moment, but fairly, I point this out. Every man's words about God should be scrutinized and discerned, and from my perspective, since I am accountable for every idle one, I must submit myself first, before others, as having spoken words to be taken with caution.
I say caution, because having such an understanding as I will present, brings much ridicule and condemnation from the modern church, yet it does not come with any intent of diluting the need for salvation.
Likewise, I seek not to ridicule or condemn anyone with a contrary understanding, because as called, I fish, not hunt. I dangle a delicious hook and sit back and watch, not chase down and inject an arrow.
The only "credit" that I ask, is to notice that I don't say rude things to people to defend my stance or as if to spit on them. People who engage in such are not behaving like Christ. I do not call my brothers vipers.
(though I might call an deceitful group of teachers a den of them)
Though scripture doesn't say it quite outright (or maybe it does lost in translation?) I don't know, but...
What if the passage about "once to die", which uses Jesus as an example, actually is saying that after a man dies the first time, of his "two", comes his judgment?
IF this is the case, then let's consider the two deaths we must all die, a physical death, and an inner death to self, the latter of which basically equates to repentance, yielding "born again"
Now, assuming that we all die twice, and after our first death comes our judgment, we have two possible scenarios:
1. The man dies physically first, is resurrected way in the future before the throne, judged, and cast into the second spiritual death. (Dies bodily, later fixed in the heart)
2. The man dies spiritually first, is resurrected immediately before the throne (born again), judged now (saved), and eventually cast into his necessary second physical death, then resurrected physically. (Fixed in the heart, then dies bodily)
In this way, I see that Jesus, as illustrated in the rest of the "die once" passage, did die to self and was made new without sin. (I believe in the case of Jesus, He was born in this "dead" state, sinless, considering that for God to even subject Himself to our lowly flesh constitutes a first death.)
He died once spiritually, and His second and physical death indeed had no power over Him, as illustrated in His resurrection, and one of the letters in Revelation, saying that to him who overcomes, the second death has no power. Furthermore, I see this concept being compatible with the statement that the dead in Christ shall rise. Those who died to self and followed Jesus, whether it be people in the past, or end time followers who reject and become beheaded by the beast, are physically resurrected from their second and physical death, on the last day, and caught up into the air, just like their master Jesus.
Contrarily, I see that the unrepentant, those who do not die first spiritually, suffer their first death as physical, and their second death is the lake of fire, which, by way of dis-embraced correction, does have power over them. The power to fix regardless.
To reiterate, I'm suggesting that we all either:
1. Die to self, by sacrificially casting ourselves into a corrective lake of fire now, a first death for us (through Christ of course) having power over it rather than it having power over us.
Then die physically unto resurrection on the last day, our second death that (again, because of the resurrecting power of Christ's second coming) also has no power over us.
2. Die physically, having not repented, a physical death that because they have no power in Christ, does not resurrect them when He returns. It has power over them.
Then die spiritually because of the power that the unwanted lake of fire executes against them.
2 deaths each with no power
vs.
2 deaths each having power
2 deaths for each of us, as a required double witness to our entire life's works.
When we bake our bread (interpret the harvest), we might fuel the fire with man's dung (what a man rejects)
Or we might fuel the fire with ox dung (what a yoke pulling living sacrifice rejects)
And Yeshua breaks the harvest interpretation when He gives it to His disciples.
The common harvest interpretation, now broken, identifies His body (His Church)
And interestingly, the bread which He broke was specifically represented by the word for regular leavened bread (artos), in contradiction by the same author, that it was a feast of unleavened bread (azumos). They ate the meal on the first day of passover, not the first day of the feast of unleavened bread. They ate a day earlier than everyone else. (Ergo, the need for His disciples to have an explanation as to what they were doing as they went to prepare the meal "today" rather than for "tomorrow") The unleavened bread was eaten by everyone else as normal, the night after His crucifixion.
A little bit leavens the lump, and this leavened lump is what Jesus broke.
Chow down!
12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
13 And YHWH said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, to which point I will drive them. (the reason becomes obvious, to correct with the experience of irony)
14 Then said I, Ah YHWH Elohim! Behold (please look!), my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.
15 Then He said unto me, Lo (surprise!), I have given thee ox's dung instead of man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.
The scariest thing about the lake of fire to me, would be knowing that if a person avoids it, they will have made it into paradise with all of their "identity" intact, because they were made acceptable through their faith in Christ.
But those who pass through the lake of fire, will have parts of their identity burned out of them and destroyed, a permanent loss! Whether this means memories, personality traits, or whatever, I shy away from further scary contemplation.
"we" become different people and remain ourselves
"they" remain their selves and become different people
He says He restores all things.
Peace!
You completely misunderstand what corruption means.
The word corruption refers to Jesus actual physical body and nothing else. Here is the verse
Acts 2:31 KJV
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
So I guess the mind of Christ didn’t help you this time. The mind of cfultz3 took over
The word corruption refers to Jesus actual physical body and nothing else. Here is the verse
Acts 2:31 KJV
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
So I guess the mind of Christ didn’t help you this time. The mind of cfultz3 took over
Last edited:
C
You completely misunderstand what corruption means. --
Which of these make sense:
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption (destruction, ruin) that is in the world through lust.
or
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption (decaying of the flesh) that is in the world through lust.
The word corruption refers to Jesus actual physical body and nothing else. Here is the verse
Acts 2:31 KJV
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Did His flesh see no decay (G1312) (correctly said), or did His soul see no destruction (G5356)(correctly said)? How far down did His soul go in Hades, did His soul reach the floor of Hades?
Perhaps the flesh is different then the soul? His soul saw no corruption, seeing that He went only to Paradise, His flesh saw no corruption of decay.
So I guess the mind of Christ didn’t help you this time. The mind of cfultz3 took over -- nah. We have a soul, that is who we are. And to imply that His soul saw corruption is to say that the Holy One did see corruption, even though we are told differently. Was it His soul or His flesh who went to Hades? Of course, His soul.
Which of these make sense:
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption (destruction, ruin) that is in the world through lust.
or
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption (decaying of the flesh) that is in the world through lust.
The word corruption refers to Jesus actual physical body and nothing else. Here is the verse
Acts 2:31 KJV
He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
Did His flesh see no decay (G1312) (correctly said), or did His soul see no destruction (G5356)(correctly said)? How far down did His soul go in Hades, did His soul reach the floor of Hades?
Perhaps the flesh is different then the soul? His soul saw no corruption, seeing that He went only to Paradise, His flesh saw no corruption of decay.
So I guess the mind of Christ didn’t help you this time. The mind of cfultz3 took over -- nah. We have a soul, that is who we are. And to imply that His soul saw corruption is to say that the Holy One did see corruption, even though we are told differently. Was it His soul or His flesh who went to Hades? Of course, His soul.
Does anyone know what the “key” is? Let me tell you about it. A key is an instrument that is used to operate a lock. A key is intended to operate a specific lock or a small number of locks that are keyed alike, so each lock requires a unique key. The key serves as a security token for access to the locked area; only persons having the correct key can open the lock and gain access. Keys provide a method of access control for access to physical properties like buildings and vehicles. If you have a key to a house or a car do you use it? I do, I use it every day
Well Jesus has the key to Hades
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth , and was dead; and, behold , I am alive for evermore , Amen; and have the keys of Hades and of death.
If Jesus has the keys to Hades then he surely visits it sometimes
Well Jesus has the key to Hades
Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth , and was dead; and, behold , I am alive for evermore , Amen; and have the keys of Hades and of death.
If Jesus has the keys to Hades then he surely visits it sometimes
C
Yes, He has the key to Death and Hades, no longer does satan have accusational rights to condemn the righteous by the Law's final judgment of death. The question still remains, if Paradise was in Hades, and it was said that He went to Hades and took the righteous dead from Hades, does Satan still have the right he once did to assure all to his domain?
Again, did He go to Hades or Tartarus (Gohenna)? We understand Tartarus to be the place of the wicked dead, as oppose to Abraham's Bosom for the righteous dead.
If salvation is the possession of the righteous, how then can salvation be the possession of either the living or dead wicked?
If salvation was offered to the wicked dead, then what purpose did it serve for the living righteous of the Law to have followed the Law which was ordained into them as their righteousness?
If those under the Law, either those who adhered or did not adhered to the Law, knew that they only had to wait until the Messiah were to go to Hades to accept Him as Christ, then why the judgment of condemnation on the wicked, when all in all, God could just had said, 'Live as you may, but remember to accept my Son as Messaih once He comes to you in Hades and Tartarus?'
Is it not said that there is hope for the living? What hope is there if not obtaining salvation? If one is dead, is there hope for their deliverance? Shall Christ descend again and offer salvation to the wicked? Yet, the wicked have an everlasting destruction from His presence.
Again, did He go to Hades or Tartarus (Gohenna)? We understand Tartarus to be the place of the wicked dead, as oppose to Abraham's Bosom for the righteous dead.
If salvation is the possession of the righteous, how then can salvation be the possession of either the living or dead wicked?
If salvation was offered to the wicked dead, then what purpose did it serve for the living righteous of the Law to have followed the Law which was ordained into them as their righteousness?
If those under the Law, either those who adhered or did not adhered to the Law, knew that they only had to wait until the Messiah were to go to Hades to accept Him as Christ, then why the judgment of condemnation on the wicked, when all in all, God could just had said, 'Live as you may, but remember to accept my Son as Messaih once He comes to you in Hades and Tartarus?'
Is it not said that there is hope for the living? What hope is there if not obtaining salvation? If one is dead, is there hope for their deliverance? Shall Christ descend again and offer salvation to the wicked? Yet, the wicked have an everlasting destruction from His presence.
Paradise is not in Hades. Let’s go through the story
Luke 16:19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores ,And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died , and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom:
Can you see that the beggar was carried to Abraham’s Bosom (or Paradise)?
the rich man also died , and was buried ;And in Hades he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Can you see that rich man is in Hades?
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. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receiveds thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented .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.
So Hades and Abraham Bosom are separated by great gulf.
C
Which one of these two posts of yours is correct. Either Hades (Shoel in the OT) contained Paradise like you said below or it was not a part of Hades like you said above:
quote from you:
You seem to be a bit confused about Hades (abode of the dead in NT). Hell (used for Shoel in OT) of the Old Testament is Sheol (abode of the dead) and Sheol is abode of disembodied spirits (no, of souls). It is split into two sections: Hades (Shoel in OT) and Paradise (or Abraham’s bosom). Hades is a place where wicked await for Judgement day (in that sense Hades is like a Prison). When a wicked person dies he goes straight to Hades. Paradise (or Abraham’s bosom) is a place where good people like Abraham or Solomon used to go to. (Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?) Nowadays good people (Christians) go straight to be with Jesus.
quote from you:
You seem to be a bit confused about Hades (abode of the dead in NT). Hell (used for Shoel in OT) of the Old Testament is Sheol (abode of the dead) and Sheol is abode of disembodied spirits (no, of souls). It is split into two sections: Hades (Shoel in OT) and Paradise (or Abraham’s bosom). Hades is a place where wicked await for Judgement day (in that sense Hades is like a Prison). When a wicked person dies he goes straight to Hades. Paradise (or Abraham’s bosom) is a place where good people like Abraham or Solomon used to go to. (Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?) Nowadays good people (Christians) go straight to be with Jesus.
Sheol is the Hebrew term found in Old Testament only. It is not found in New Testament . Sheol was understood to be the place where the dead gathered, as thought by the early Hebrews, and was believed located beneath the earth, perhaps at the roots of mountains. The dead were thought to lead a conscious shadowy existence there, they were not in torment, but had neither hope nor satisfaction. Some thought they remained cut off from God
People went sorrowfully to Sheol and it was viewed as gloomy. It was thought that both the good and the bad went there. Sheol was seen as a dark place where everyone rests in dust; and it appears to have been thought to have levels.
It is Jesus who explained that Sheol has got two distinct parts. The place for wicked (Hades) and the place for good (Abraham’s bosom or Paradise)
People went sorrowfully to Sheol and it was viewed as gloomy. It was thought that both the good and the bad went there. Sheol was seen as a dark place where everyone rests in dust; and it appears to have been thought to have levels.
It is Jesus who explained that Sheol has got two distinct parts. The place for wicked (Hades) and the place for good (Abraham’s bosom or Paradise)
Last edited:
The word “Tartaros” occurs only once in scriptures. Here it is
2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell [Tartaros], and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
“Tartaros” is translated as the deepest abyss so Tartaros might be the great gulf that is fixed between Hades and Abraham’s bosom.
Jesus didn’t go to Tartaros because according to 1 Pet 3:18-19 He preached to some specific Spirits who were disobedient in days of Noah. These Spirits can’t be Demons because Demons are always disobedient not just in times of Noah
2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell [Tartaros], and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
“Tartaros” is translated as the deepest abyss so Tartaros might be the great gulf that is fixed between Hades and Abraham’s bosom.
Jesus didn’t go to Tartaros because according to 1 Pet 3:18-19 He preached to some specific Spirits who were disobedient in days of Noah. These Spirits can’t be Demons because Demons are always disobedient not just in times of Noah
Wrong. The story about rich man and Lazarus happened before Jesus.
So before Jesus the places for the dead were Hades and Abraham’s bosom (or Paradise)
But in the Old Testament times Jewish people believed Sheol to be the place for good and wicked
Therefore Sheol is split into Hades and Abraham’s bosom (or Paradise)
So before Jesus the places for the dead were Hades and Abraham’s bosom (or Paradise)
But in the Old Testament times Jewish people believed Sheol to be the place for good and wicked
Therefore Sheol is split into Hades and Abraham’s bosom (or Paradise)
C
For those interested in a correct understanding, please click:
Hell, Sheol, Hades, Paradise, and the Grave | Berean Bible Society
Hell, Sheol, Hades, Paradise, and the Grave | Berean Bible Society