Are the teachings of Jesus about the horror of Hell literal or metaphorical?

[KingJ]

Yep a bad place with eternal unquenchable fire. A place of eternal painful fiery torture. A place of retributive punishment in that people who end up there deserved to end up there. At least that is the traditional Christian viewpoint.

Ten thousand centuries will come and go, and not one day in Hell will have ended. In the amount of time it takes a new universe to expand and collapse, not a single evening in the fiery furnace of Hell will have gone by. One will be fully awake to experience a nightmare above any nightmare ever experienced while alive. And an eternity of suffering awaits.

All scripture states is fire and separation. Outside of this, why anyone assumes the worst of a vastly unknown future event is beyond me.

God has been good in the past, is good in the current and rest assured, He will also be good in the future.

 

[Victor VanHeerden]

The biggest problem with the doctrine is that it drives people away from God, not toward Him.

Yep. Still - not our problem. It can do both.

The Holy Ghost convicts and he can use the fear of God/Hell or The love of God.

Since when is the Gospel allowed to become influenced by modern thinking. Where hell is not a fiery furnace? But a place more acceptable.

Read up on some of the outpourings of Gods Wrath in the OT and NT.

Worldwide flood (Genesis 6-9),
Destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19),
The defeat of the Egyptians (Ex. 15:7)
Tribulation Wrath of God(Rev. 6:16-17; 14:9-10; 15:7; 16:1), at the second coming of Jesus (Rev. 19:2, 15), and at the Great White throne judgment where unbelievers are cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:11-15).

Must we also tear these out of the Bible to appease angry unrepentant sinners?

Rom. 1:18 For the Wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

 

[Victor VanHeerden]

God has been good in the past, is good in the current and rest assured, He will also be good in the future.

Of course. God is Good. Who says a good God cannot punish people that called upon His wrath?

Rom. 1:18 For the Wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

 

[Victor VanHeerden]

All scripture states is fire and separation. Outside of this, why anyone assumes the worst of a vastly unknown future event is beyond me.

Yep.

And that's enough.

We know that the fire is punitive and not for purification.

Unquenchable fire is one kind of eternal punishment and eternal solitary confinement the another.

We can also see what happened to people experiencing Gods Wrath. From Noah's time, to Pharaoh, to Rev etc. To get a hint at what else there is to expect in Hell.

 

[KingJ]

Yep.

And that's enough.

We know that the fire is punitive and not for purification.

Unquenchable fire is one kind of eternal punishment and eternal solitary confinement the another.

We can also see what happened to people experiencing Gods Wrath. From Noah's time, to Pharaoh, to Rev etc. To get a hint at what else there is to expect in Hell.

'Eternal solitary confinement'? I just said we should not assume the worst of a vastly unknown future event.

What can we learn from Noah? A drowning is a quick death. It is a 'good' way to remove someone from earth to Hades.

Pharaoh, we learn merely that God put plagues on people He does not see as yet sold out to sin full measure. A forceful / increasing in severity attempt by Him to get people to repent. Also, ironically, a 'good' thing. We need to compare a momentary plague to eternal separation to see it is God being good.

 

[KingJ]

We know that the fire is punitive and not for purification.

Yes. That is why a few, me included, believe in an initial punitive fire. On par with something like what Jesus suffered on earth for a day. Isa 53:5 says 'by His stripes we are healed from our sins'. Thus a Christian could safely hypothesize that since God is just and saw under one day of suffering as sufficient compensation for the sins of mankind, He will also punish the wicked with a similar 'initial' punishment for all their sins on earth. Then we know the fire is eternal and that God punishes sin (purification I guess) according to deeds committed Rom 2:6, resulting in yet another rather safe hypothesis of God punishing wicked with an agonizing fire as and when they sin.

 

[KingJ]

Of course. God is Good. Who says a good God cannot punish people that called upon His wrath?

Rom. 1:18 For the Wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

The punishment type determines whether God is good or not. We do not rely on words to grasp God being good. It is His actions that make Him holy and worthy of praise and worship.

I will repeat, there is nothing evil that God has done in the past or present. Now lets not assume He will do so in the future. If He were to place the wicked in a brazen bull type hell for all eternity He would sit atop the list of the most wicked beings to ever live. There would be a mass fallout in heaven as 'good' people in heaven watch God cruelly punishing their lost loved ones. Imagine that. This will never take place, not because God will brainwash or remove our memories, rather because we will all agree with the punishment He dishes out.

I truly feel that all those that teach and espouse a torturous hell being acceptable punishment for the wicked (IE repaying evil with insanely evil) do truly not know God and are themselves in danger of hell fire.

Imagine being that individual that is 'ok' with serving such a god .

 

[Victor VanHeerden]

If He were to place the wicked in a brazen bull type hell for all eternity He would sit atop the list of the most wicked beings to ever live

Well that is the traditional version of Hell.

Of course people are entitled to believe what ever they can read into scripture. However i must agree that the doctrine of Hell will never be compatible with a merciful deity. Taking a literal brazen bull fire out of the picture will not do it either. The smallest fiber of common sense tells us that we put a sick animal out of its misery. We don’t torture it because it attacked or bit us on the leg.

Hell defies decency, civility, morality, compassion, and sound judgment.

And more and more modern Christians are becoming ashamed to profess belief in it.

Interestingly If you look deeper into the origins of an eternal fiery hell. You will find Hellenistic roots. Not Jewish ones.

The traditional doctrine of hell “is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous and the goodness of God impugned.” [C.S. Lewis The Problem of Pain, “Hell”].

 

[KingJ]

Well that is the traditional version of Hell.

Of course people are entitled to believe what ever they can read into scripture. However i must agree that the doctrine of Hell will never be compatible with a merciful deity. Taking a literal brazen bull fire out of the picture will not do it either. The smallest fiber of common sense tells us that we put a sick animal out of its misery. We don’t torture it because it attacked or bit us on the leg.

God likewise gave all at the time of Noah and Sodom a swift death.

Hell defies decency, civility, morality, compassion, and sound judgment.

Those that teach the absolutely worst version of 'eternal fire' do not speak for God.

What would you do with evil people that never want to repent? The fact that God creates a home for the wicked says a lot about God.

And more and more modern Christians are becoming ashamed to profess belief in it.

It is not 'modern' Christians. The verses of God being a good God, a loving God and those who don't know love not knowing Him, have been around from day one.

Interestingly If you look deeper into the origins of an eternal fiery hell. You will find Hellenistic roots. Not Jewish ones.

Irrelevant.

 

[Butch5]

Yep. Still - not our problem. It can do both.

The Holy Ghost convicts and he can use the fear of God/Hell or The love of God.

Since when is the Gospel allowed to become influenced by modern thinking. Where hell is not a fiery furnace? But a place more acceptable.

Read up on some of the outpourings of Gods Wrath in the OT and NT.

Worldwide flood (Genesis 6-9),
Destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19),
The defeat of the Egyptians (Ex. 15:7)
Tribulation Wrath of God(Rev. 6:16-17; 14:9-10; 15:7; 16:1), at the second coming of Jesus (Rev. 19:2, 15), and at the Great White throne judgment where unbelievers are cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:11-15).

Must we also tear these out of the Bible to appease angry unrepentant sinners?

Rom. 1:18 For the Wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

It is our problem if we are presenting a false gospel. The gospel shouldn't be influenced by any thinking, however, we find that it often is. Such is the case with this doctrine at hand. The problem comes from translating 'not seen' to "hell" in English which has a much different concept. How does one translate 'not seen' to fiery eternal torment? If I said a child is not seen am I saying they are in a place of fiery torment or am I saying they're out of sight? Clearly I mean they're out of sight. So why would someone translate that statement as a place of fiery torment? The answer is Theology. The translation is driven by their theology and not the text itself.

We can look At all of those outpouring of God's wrath. In which of them do we see the recipients suffering eternal torment?

 

[Beetow]

Jesus spoke of worms at Mark 9:43-48. Well if his worms are figures of speech then
in order to remain consistent, we'd have to assign the worms at Isa 66:23-24 the
same designation because it appears to me that his comments reiterate Isaiah's.
_

 

[Butch5]

Jesus spoke of worms at Mark 9:43-48. Well if his worms are figures of speech then
in order to remain consistent, we'd have to assign the worms at Isa 66:23-24 the
same designation because it appears to me that his comments reiterate Isaiah's.
_

Agreed.

 

[KingJ]

Jesus spoke of worms at Mark 9:43-48. Well if his worms are figures of speech then
in order to remain consistent, we'd have to assign the worms at Isa 66:23-24 the
same designation because it appears to me that his comments reiterate Isaiah's.
_

Scripture mentions worms occurring at two times.

1. In the millennium.

These worms do die, it is just that it appears as though they don't as the flesh of all the dead from Armageddon is so bountiful.

IE Metaphor with them 'not dying'.

2. In hell.

This context leans heavily toward support for an annihilationist view. On face value it would seem that much like the mass volume of dead bodies after Armageddon, Jesus is referring to a mass volume of dead bodies at another date / after judgement day.

What we do need to understand however is the fact that a worm needs to eat actual 'flesh'. As such, if you do not hold to an annihilationist view, you can interpret the verse from Jesus much the same as the prior occurrence. Namely a metaphor, as clearly flesh does not 'live on'. Not in heaven and not in hell. Job 34:14-15 If He should determine to do so, If He should gather to Himself His spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust.

----------------

The 'worst' possible interpretation of the scripture by Jesus is to assume He is referring to worms eating the spiritual bodies of those that go to hell. Many believe and teach this. It cannot be further from the truth. A crystal clear case of adding to the bible what is not there.