When Was Hell Created?

[rosered]

Of course the real word is sheol or hades, not hell which now days means torture in fire.

            :thumbsup:  Bushy      H  e  double hockey sticks  , sheol , grave , unseen    in the old and Gehenna   in the new  ''after the cross ''   Judgement come .

Just translation errors   Bibles have improved greatly   , I do feel  pity on those whom  will   not examine   any other translation that just one ,
   The one they think  is   perfect   and very one else is deceived    :sigh:

[CST]

Jude, in verse 7, said "the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.. is the example of eternal fire" - Jude 7.

Pretty much my thoughts when I think about Sodom & Gomorrah and when I believed (reluctantly) in ET this was what I thought of. There was a thing in Genesis when a mass judgement by water was later followed by a localized judgement by fire and because, although God is ultimately beyond all things, the Bible anthropomorphizes Him so much He does things that look at first glance like He's got human character flaws. So when He acts in anger it can look as though He's lost His temper and acted rashly. Even though God has perfect anger so He acts perfectly. This however leads to the feeling that like His gifts are irrevocable and so eternal His judgments are also so because He never has cause to change them. Of course, the catch in that is that it presupposes He only had an eternal sentence at His disposal because that's the only sentance that would be just, a concept that is not supported.

I always have a problem with Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain in that I don't know what to do with their story. They're in the Bible and clearly meant to teach and illustrate something but I've struggled to know what to do with the information that it's righteous to destroy a city or cities if that contain less than ten righteous people, but if they contain that number or more it's not. What am I supposed to do with that?

When I was stuck in the ET camp and didn't know how to get out of it a lot of things bothered me, like Israel and the covenant and the fact that following the covenant (as was believed at the time) was meant to turn Israel into a model nation and an object lesson for the world, the surrounding nations were meant to, (except no because Israel were sure to fail) see the prosperity of Israel as it followed its covenant and be inspired to follow its example. There is also the idea that it was meant to be a reflection of the Kingdom of God.

So, we can use that, some people in Israel were unclean, if you were unclear you were supposed to be put outside the city until such time as you were clean again and then there was a process to follow for you to return when you were (if ever). Now this looks an awful lot like an object lesson for sin, separation, forgiveness and reconciliation. So far so good.

But what about capital crimes. This bothered me in the past, if a person was caught committing a capital crime in Israel and put to death obviously there was no chance of then coming back into the city, the gates weren't left open for then.

The object lesson here bothered me a lot more because it seemed to suggest that there were offenses where forgiveness and reconciliation were not possible and the final verdict was eternal separation, a concept that sounds very like the state historic Christianity calls 'Hell'.

So what do we do. Having thought about this I have realized that we invoke the resurrection of Jesus to change the way things are. Because before the resurrection of Jesus death was death, presumably everyone stayed dead so even people who never committed capital crimes (or were never caught committing capital crimes) would still eventually die due to being in the sin trap. So the line of reasoning doesn't work so well except to show that capital crimes can bring around receiving your wage a lot more quickly. Other than that there's no reason those who commit capital crimes and are executed should receive any especially large lack of mercy when they are raised at the judgement and will be judged by the same criteria as everyone else.

This was an interesting thread a few things I particularly took note of. The argument that the Bible doesn't say when God created Hell for one. I'm not sure I can give that much credence myself, the Bible doesn't say when God created the angels or when Satan and some of that number fell either, but many Christians accept it happened. Still this probably isn't really the thread for that.

Also someone mentioned the Sheep and the Goats, I have a lot to say about that but this is definitely not the place for that.

I will say though that as far as I know goats are not considered a type of sheep. They are however, as I understand, the most valuable piece of livestock a Jewish farmer can own the the possible exception of cattle.

[CST]

How do you get that, Satan isn't even mentioned? And it says it's about the king of Tyre who I imagine to be a human male.

[darryl]

On a side note . . .we often refer to nonchristians as "unbelievers".  Even our own perspective of these people has a negative tone.  What if instead of them being nonbelievers, what they actually are, are "prebelievers".  That just has a much more positive pronouncement with it don't ya think??

.."prebelievers"..yes, I like that. :dsunny:

[micah7:9]

How do you get that, Satan isn't even mentioned? And it says it's about the king of Tyre who I imagine to be a human male.

:thumbsup:

[Dandelion]

Thank you CST and Micah, I stand corrected. Just looked up the commentaries on this passage, and you guys are correct.

So sorry. I know I should never get on the computer when I am very tired. Bad things happen.    :dunno2:

I will remove it.

D.

[CST]

Oh, don't do that. You make us look stupid and create a discontinuous thread which others come to and have no idea what we're talking about. Given how the Bible is written there could be allegorical references to Satan all over the place, the phrasing here is sure dramatic, I just can't see how you can get it and apparently you can't now either.

Also remember the commentaries aren't the first and foremost authority, 'the many' of them will still argue for the doctrine of eternal torment from the text they're commenting on.

[micah7:9]

"satan" is not a who(proper name)....satan means adversary or opponent. Today we see that the USA a is called the great satan meaning we are considered an adversary. :Peace2:

[CST]

Well, yes and no. Clearly there is a very large proportion of the established Christian church that believes in the spiritual reality of a being called 'Satan' who wanders the world trying to get humans to commit sin. The mechanism may be debated but not the existence of the being who is actually called Satan. Many Biblical names are descriptors that doesn't mean they're not also names.

Satan is also called Satanail, which I think is a corruption of Satanael which would, I imagine, mean adversary of God. Of course, curiously that name is not found anywhere in canon but only in pseudopigraphal text though I'm not sure what to do with that, surely it does not mean that because, in the Bible, this being is only called 'adversary' and not 'adversary of God' makes him any less an adversary of God?

Either way the term 'Satan' is in the Bible, often in places where it seems to suggest a proper noun. Therefore I see only two possibilities. The term 'Satan' does refer to an actual being that exists and attempts to undermine God's purposes in the world in ways often understood as, or completely different from, those describe my modern Christianity. Or else the term 'satan' refers to some capacity in human reasoning that enables them to persuade themselves to make decisions in opposition to God's purposes from them and others even if you asked them directly they would say this is the last thing they wanted to do.

I find the second much more appealing, a lot of 'official' churches, however, much prefer the first. Not sure why it doesn't really help anyone any.

[eaglesway]

I am not sure that "whether it helps anyone in anyway" is at issue. What helps is knowing the mind of God and being appropriated by the truth in a renewed mind. As far as I can tell the scriptures show the adversary as an entity, who works in a system that is permeated by a spirit, that is shared among men and among verious levels of spirits that  are defined as demons, principalities and powere, etc.

If this is not in fact true then much of the scripture is not true, including the gospels and Acts, Job, Daniel, and portions of the epistles.

If the adversary is only an aspect of man, then Paul was an ignorant believer in myths and fairy tales who took advantage of the ignorance of men to foist a false cosmology upon them.

If Jesus did not cast out demons He was not who He said He was, or the record we have of Him is untrue- exagerated myths and allegories. If that is the case then the record from which we draw faith in supernatural events such as the virgin birth, are unreliable. Why then should we believe in the resurrection?

Perhaps it is just an allegory for a better way of living by the teachings of Jesus- not an actual fact of history upon which we base our salvation.

My point is that if the scriptures are unreliable at one point, they are unreliable at all points, because we are not speaking of a a minor exception or a  variation of wording between two accoints, here. Satan and demons are a frequent part of the gospel narrative.

If it remains for us to separate out the parts where Paul, or Jesus, or the writers of the gospel were just pulling our legs- or just ignorant... then why attribute to the scriptures any more authority than the writings of other religions, or even the myths of other nations?

[CST]

You seem to be arguing here against all forms of allegory and parable. Like the parable of the sower doesn't work unless thee's an actual sower who sows actual seeds remember the devil is referenced in the explanation to the parable of the sower two but only in relation to the seed that fell on the path. The reason the other seeds don't take is explained by other factors. This would seriously limit what Satan can actually do.

At several point this thread has made the argument that Hell doesn't exist because nowhere does the Bible say when God made it. Well the Bible doesn't say when God made Satan either so by the same reasoning Satan does exist. But even using that sort of reasoning it's much more likely that Hell exists than Satan.

The Bible teaches that God reveals His truth to people gradually, He opens their eyes gradually. How to we know that the historic belief in 'the Devil and his angels' wasn't simply God wasn't prepared to open peoples eyes to the truth of at that time? That they couldn't get their head around the idea of mental illness and tectonic shifts and gravity. He had to let the grow and learn it to serve His purposes so He used the metaphor of the evil spirits to explain when Jesus cured the mentally ill. There are a lot of theological problems with the doctrine of Satan. It certainly isn't possible to believe in Satan and free will at the same time, not after you've read what happened in Eden. But I'm starting to feel we're going way off topic and i may also be missing what you actually just said. I may have misled you in what I wrote initially, looking back there seems to be something missing but I can't quite remember what I was going to write.

I'm also not sure you've understood my last remark either, if you're trying to paraphrase it you don't seem to have caught the correct spirit of it. I was trying to say that the only reason I can think of for the 'official church' to like the idea of Satan is because they like the idea of Satan going to Hell like all the bad people. I didn't say that but my point was that if Satan's like that we're got ourselves an enemy we can struggle to see or identify and there's no reason other than pride that the 'official church' should think they'd be immune to His manipulations and so not end up in Hell themselves.

One other argument people here like to make against Hell is that it isn't mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament. Now the term 'satan' is used in the Old Testament of course, but not in anyway where he could clearly be identified as a real being. Without exception, when used in the OT the term either seems to or could be taken to mean a human agency. Or it could be taken poetically as a symbol to mean something else. The name 'Lucifer' in the book of Isaiah tends these days to be conceded as a mistranslation of how the text should be understood.

I do get your final point and am very sympathetic to it. However, I would point out that what your suggesting that because of the actually infallibility of the New Testament writers the Bible is infallible in the text its self it means we know longer need to depend on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to reveal to us the truth of the Bible because what it says on the page is true without qualification or explanation. I don't accept that.

[eaglesway]

We have to distinguish between what is allegory and metaphor and what is narrative. The Holy Spirit is the writer of the scriptures (the scriptures are God-breathed,....holy men moved of Gd etc.)

So the existence of Satan and demons is not an issue of metaphor, unless the gospels are in themselves metaphors, not narratives. When Jesus tells a parable it is a metaphor. When Mark records Jesus' actions and words, it is historical narrative.

When Jesus frees the Gadarene madman from demonic bondage, that is narrative. When Paul casts a spirit of divination out of the prophetess of Diana, that is narrative. If those acts are allegories, or metaphors for elements of man's character, then the whole Bible is an allegory written by uninformed men of myth and monster and psychology rules over their spiritual insights(my opinion).

If Satan is a metaphor in Job, then the whole book of Job is an allegory. If Satn is an allegory at the mount of temptation, then the entire gospel must be an allegory. If God has left us to guess what is allegory and what is historical narrative, then imo, the Holy Spirit doesnt have much to do with the scriptures.

So this is simple common sense that I believe the Holy Spirit confirms, because He is wisdom.

[Dandelion]

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people. 19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

I think it is clear that we battle against the powers and spirits of darkness, and not against men (flesh and blood). The devil is clearly stated to be, at the very least, part of the evil we battle.

D.

[darryl]

At several point this thread has made the argument that Hell doesn't exist because nowhere does the Bible say when God made it. Well the Bible doesn't say when God made Satan either so by the same reasoning Satan does exist. But even using that sort of reasoning it's much more likely that Hell exists than Satan.



One other argument people here like to make against Hell is that it isn't mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament.

slight change of subject but if an eternal hell exists, (which I believe it does not) a place where God torments humans without end..even if God leaves humans there in their own misery forever without actually tormenting them..well, we are all lost because a god capable of doing such a thing could only be evil.This is the point the hellists miss.

[eaglesway]

 :thumbsup:

[marie glen]

Another interesting verse - Rev 12:9 refers to "the great dragon, serpent of old, called the devil and Satan/adversary, who deceives the whole world.. and his angels.."

[CST]

We have to distinguish between what is allegory and metaphor and what is narrative. The Holy Spirit is the writer of the scriptures (the scriptures are God-breathed,....holy men moved of Gd etc.)

So the existence of Satan and demons is not an issue of metaphor, unless the gospels are in themselves metaphors, not narratives. When Jesus tells a parable it is a metaphor. When Mark records Jesus' actions and words, it is historical narrative.

When Jesus frees the Gadarene madman from demonic bondage, that is narrative. When Paul casts a spirit of divination out of the prophetess of Diana, that is narrative. If those acts are allegories, or metaphors for elements of man's character, then the whole Bible is an allegory written by uninformed men of myth and monster and psychology rules over their spiritual insights(my opinion).

If Satan is a metaphor in Job, then the whole book of Job is an allegory. If Satn is an allegory at the mount of temptation, then the entire gospel must be an allegory. If God has left us to guess what is allegory and what is historical narrative, then imo, the Holy Spirit doesnt have much to do with the scriptures.

So this is simple common sense that I believe the Holy Spirit confirms, because He is wisdom.

Why, that logic doesn't follow your saying that when the Bible is recording historical events in the Gospels they can't contain any symbolic language mixed in. It all represents something and, to my opinion you're making a category error. You are conflating the weight of what the Bible reveals about God with how it presents God's world.

As I said in the Parable of the sower Jesus says, 'And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow; And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:' (Matthew 13:3-4)

And explains it thus: 'When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.' (Matthew 13:19)

Obviously the 'wicked one' would be understood to be Satan even though Jesus doesn't use the word, represented one being by a multitude of 'fowls' and said that even prior to the evil one taking the 'word of the kingdom' away it is already not understood by the hearer, the evil one is described in having no part in the other two scenarios where it appears word that is 'understood' initially is later abandoned.

Why is it that you can't see that literal word and metaphor can be blended. You don't believe in Thanatos and Hades do you even though John records both beings appearing in the Revelation? Why not? Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire and than Death (Thanatos) and Hades are thrown into the Lake of Fire. Now two of those beings do not exist, not as actual beings. Why should I therefore believe the third one, Satan, does? Why should I view Satan differently from the other two?

When Jesus, rebukes, Peter saying 'Get behind me, Satan.' He's not trying to say that Peter has suddenly disappeared and been replaced with the Devil, He isn't using the term literally. But your argument that doesn't allow symbolic language to be mixed with literal narrative would suggest that's what's happened.

The miracle of the Gadarene swine is a very specialised miracle. Of course, the term used is Legion but the man has all the hallmarks of having a multiple personality disorder by the sounds of it. What happens there is that Jesus is making a point about Jewish racism, when He cites a Jewish idiom rather ironically, 'cast not your pearls before swine' meaning don't share God's precious election with Gentiles, basically. A few passages later and He's performing a miracle with swine. If I believe that Legion is an actual demon what happens to it after the swine drown? Does it return to Satan to be sent out again back into the world to torment someone else or indeed find its way back to the swineherd again? That rather limits Jesus's achievement if that can happen and so far as I know demons can't die that easily.

And what about the 'prophetess' of Diana (not sure where you get Diana from Acts 16 doesn't mention that detail). I see two options, either she made real prophesies that came true, in which case it's hard to see how she could be offensive to God's order or else she made false prophesies that did not come true in which case she's false prophet which technically, of course, is no prophet at all. As I recall though whatever was happening in the girls head she was very glad to be free of her 'gift' owing to the fact of other people, who were less happy, had been exploiting her. It's a strange story actually, because clearly she seems to fall into the first camp. She follows Paul around for days declaring, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you the way of salvation." which, is perfect true and Paul eventually gets fed up and exorcises her. He doesn't seem to do it purely out the goodness of his heart.

It's very strange because it doesn't say Paul is expelling a demon, it doesn't say the 'spirit of divination' is evil. It seems to be proclaiming Jesus' apostles and their authority to the community which hardly seems to serve the Devils's purposes. Then Paul simply expels it due to a lack of patience and not for any obviously virtuous reasons. This is very paradoxical, if this woman did have a demon what was it's purpose. Jesus once said 'he who is not with us is for us' about people who cast out demons in His name when the disciples tried to stop people not of their group. If this woman has a demon, it's a demon whose message makes it seem to be 'for' Jesus. That makes no sense. And then Paul seems to expel it in a fit of pique. On lack of better evidence I have to understand that the purpose of this is of free this woman from bondage to her wicked masters the spirit in her having served its purpose. I don't know what else to do with it.

Now, Job. What you are saying doesn't logical follow. The book of Job has no clear setting anyway I'm not sure what it looses if it is allegory but even taken a history in the main body that doesn't mean the heavenly court bit in given that it would have to take place outside natural space-time.

Here's what I think about the Book of Job. First it says Job is righteous. How by works of the law or faith of Jesus. Well, pre-incarnation it may be but it has to be faith of Jesus. No one is righteous by works of the law and the way God talks to Satan certainly suggests He has some strong belief in Job. 'Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?' High praise, indeed. And than Satan has the audacity to try to tell God he's wrong. Well, this is certain interesting but it's not entirely helpful to most of us. God's description of Job would hardly suit any of us, surely. So that would suggest that there are plenty of humans Satan could accuse and God would have to concede his point. I hard to uphold the thought that God has it in Him just to bat away all Satan's accusations with some explanation for the accused 'real' intentions. Some of us are guilty. In fact the many of us are guilty Satan only has to point the finger and accuse and he'll find someone guilty of something. So I really don't know what to do with the fact Job is 'righteous' or indeed what Satan is trying to achieve. What would happen if Satan was shown to be right? Well he can't be, can he, it would contradict God.

So how do I understand Job? I understand it by the fact the after the beginning of the book Satan completely disappears from the text as Job starts to despair. And then three of his 'friends' show up who don't seem all that friendly and they try to get him to concede, as I recall, that all this misfortune has befallen him because he, in fact, is not righteous. My suspicion, is is that these friends have become envious of Job and have raised complaints against him in their hearts, in prayer quite possibly. And these complaints have gone up to God and the introduction is a mechanism by which it is shown how God receives and responds to these complaints.

After all Satan simply vanishes from the text when his role is complete. God isn't seen to rebuke Satan for his error, he does, however, rebuke the 'friends'.

I don't need a real Satan to explain Job when a poetic explanation employing the actual characters of the text will suffice. That said I prefer this presentation of Satan to other presentations, his role is so much less problematic than other ones.

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the Lord's people. 19 Pray also for me, that whenever I speak, words may be given me so that I will fearlessly make known the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it fearlessly, as I should.

I think it is clear that we battle against the powers and spirits of darkness, and not against men (flesh and blood). The devil is clearly stated to be, at the very least, part of the evil we battle.

D.

That doesn't really prove the Devil exists, again 'the Devil' is simply a word meaning calumniator or slanderer, not necessarily a specific evil spirit. Very often in the Greek the singular and plural words look identical. Often times, as usual, the theology of the translator makes huge differences to what's written.

Another interesting verse - Rev 12:9 refers to "the great dragon, serpent of old, called the devil and Satan/adversary, who deceives the whole world.. and his angels.."

Again if you are using that to show that the Devil exists I have to ask if you also believe that Thanatos and Hades exist? In the other thread you wrote 'And what is choice if you don't let it run its natural course?' Satan causes huge problems for that reasoning. 

[marie glen]

Another interesting verse - Rev 12:9 refers to "the great dragon, serpent of old, called the devil and Satan/adversary, who deceives the whole world.. and his angels.."

Again if you are using that to show that the Devil exists I have to ask if you also believe that Thanatos and Hades exist? In the other thread you wrote 'And what is choice if you don't let it run its natural course?' Satan causes huge problems for that reasoning.

Not if one believes angels too were given rationality with an offshoot of it being the ability to make choices.. Since it's written some angels "left their first place" (position)... And isn't that part of the problem with choice before God's law (love. purity) is deeply engraved upon every heart and mind?

When i read in Revelation chapter 12 by using the interlinear Greek New Testament - http://studybible.info/IGNT/Revelation%2012:9 - "the dragon who is called slanderer and adversary who leads astray, deceives, causes to wander, the complete, whole, entire, inhabited-world" I can't think of it as metaphor for a part of mankind's psyche, mostly because the fallen nature in man is plainly gone into elsewhere in the scripture. I usually figure if something is plainly spoken, why then veil it in metaphor?

..that's my thinking anyway! :gsmile:

"Hades" before legend, i believe simply meant unseen.. and thanatos before legend, or the actual word, means merely death.. "Tartarus" I believe is metaphor for darkness, even darkness of a very dark nature :faint: .. but man will build his myths and legends.. I believe the angels which sinned are locked into their darkness, not able to reverse their course, now being corrupt and are thus locked into judgment..

I do think the slanderer and adversary influences all psyche's.. engineered that way by our heavenly Father so all would take this unavoidable journey/lesson all at once, together (all in heaven and earth).. kind of speeding things up that way?

[micah7:9]

Pursue or not to pursue  :sigh:

[eaglesway]

Here's the thing I see CST. Jesus said, "If I cast out demons by the finger of God then the kingdom of God has come upon you".

He said, "These signs will follow those who believe" and listed, they will cast out demons. So in the context of the whole scripture, any metaphors for Satan, the adversary, the wickedness of men- do not preclude the flat statements of Jesus, or the narrative history of the gospel. My point is not that there are no metaphorical references to any of the things you mentioned. My point is that those metaphors do not trump the plain statements of our Lord, nor the record of His and the apostles actions in relationship to Satan and demons.

So, Satan and demons cannot be limited to metaphor without excising a lot of scriptures and directly devaluing the testimony of the Lord and the writers of the gospels. The sorcerer Bar- Jesus(Acts) was not metephorically blinded by the Holy Spirit at Paul's word(Acts 13). Annanias and Saphira were not metaphorically slain by the Holy Spiri(Acts t. The madman of the Gadarenes was not metaphorically delivered and made whole by the casting out of Legion. Job is not a fairy tale. Mark's gospel is not a fairy tale or an allegory, it is a record of actual events. Among those events are the parables spoken by the Lord, but Mark was not speaking in parables, he was recording actual events. Luke was not espousing hyperbole- he was recording actual events.

In Thessalonians Paul speaks of the anti-christ,

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

This power and deception does not occur in a vacuum. Satan operates through man's co-operation, and it is a union of spirit, not unlike our union with the Lord. A mutual, consensual integration of works and attitudes. The scriptures make this clear. The only way around all this is:

1) To say Jesus, Paul knew better but were speaking to primitive men in primitive terms

This does not work because Jesus and Paul turned the world upside down and did not need to, or care to, speak down to us.

2) Jesus and Paul were ignorant in relationship to what we modern educated elevated Christians understand about Satan and demons.

This does not work because Jesus is the chief cornerstone and the fountainhead of all spiritual revelation and Paul was one of the foundation stones of the kingdom of God.

2) The scriptures are largely hyperbole and mythical exaggerations made to make a point- not to be believed as history or actual events and actual words of the persons written of within them.

This does not work because if this is the case they have no authority and all debate and doctrine is nonsense and speculation based in allegorical understandings.

IMO, This is the point where biblical universalism often begins to mutate into the kind of universalism that thinks it transcends the testimony of the scriptures and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

[marie glen]

[Amen Eaglesway! ...I believe it is when folks don't understand something that they go beyond scripture and, or do strange twistings of scripture, to a lot of babble(?) or folks do it to somehow show themselves to be wise/special with hidden gnosis/knowledge the rest of us don't have?]

HI Micah!

If I remember right you find it hard to believe our Heavenly Father would or could create faulty angels or that is angels that could fall or rebel? As though Yahweh made some sort of mistake?

...but why would it not be foreknown by Him? Even used? Does not a sparrow fall but He knows.. How much more the thoughts and intents of His creatures..

I'm not on my computer right now but I'll have to look up the interlinear on the verse which says "angels which left their first place" or "estate" (state?) as the KJ puts it..

The question here, to me, would be, do angels have thinking faculties, and if not are they like large nanobots.. Well, I guess nano means small :laughing7: but essentially they are forces completely controlled by God, doing only His will because they can do no other? Do they have consciousness? Self awareness? How do you believe man was able to fall/wander out of God's perfect will? Is it an idea we are made of an inferior substance?
:Peace2: :smile:

[marie glen]

I wonder.. Is it the thought of some believers that angels are metaphor?

[CST]

At several point this thread has made the argument that Hell doesn't exist because nowhere does the Bible say when God made it. Well the Bible doesn't say when God made Satan either so by the same reasoning Satan does exist. But even using that sort of reasoning it's much more likely that Hell exists than Satan.



One other argument people here like to make against Hell is that it isn't mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament.

slight change of subject but if an eternal hell exists, (which I believe it does not) a place where God torments humans without end..even if God leaves humans there in their own misery forever without actually tormenting them..well, we are all lost because a god capable of doing such a thing could only be evil.This is the point the hellists miss.

That's less a change of subject and more a return to the proper subject. Obviously 'hellists' don't believe God is evil, they rather think humans are more evil then we're inclined to imagine we are so it's perfectly just of God to push those that can't ever stop being evil ever out of His good presence.

But it might be a little bit more than leaving them in their own misery.

Firstly, imagine Hell is a real place, when was it created? Why does it have to be created yet? God could create it later perhaps it isn't needed till judgement anyway. Of course certain readings (the 'popular' ones) of the Sheep and the Goats suggest it is made but it's possible that could be presented as not yet complete.

But it doesn't need to exist and this is what is pertinent to what you said. Imagine that human beings are currently living in the light of God, in His mercy. God gives us countless blessings that are taste samples of the world to come. He gives them so much that they are essential to our welfare but we are acclimatized to them and don't see them for what they are. Come the judgment God distributes His gifts much more justly and only the righteous receive the blessings God intends for them while the unrighteous not only don't receive those blessings but God no longer gives the former blessings they had in life that they never really appreciated.

No obviously, your argument still stands. In fact I don't think we even need to go that far. We don't need to imagine that God as being evil we just need to ask is that really the best He can do? It's a process that serves the good of precisely no one although it could be a finite form of Hell without any difficulty I see. My only concern is for people's sanity if God were to execute justice to its fullest. I suspect that may therefore be a restriction too.

[marie glen]

That's really something is t it?! How some believe hell is a place, I guess, created when the universe and earth was.. And is (likely?) a subterranean place of fiery torment where the devil ("slanderer") and his minions get to toast all unsaved people, large and small, and toss them around with their pitchforks.. Hmmm, oh dear. Yes, either Yahweh most high and al-mighty couldn't do any better, or He just doesn't care. And how is this punishment for Satan ("adversary")??

I'm being sarcastic aren't I?  :Chinscratch:

Of course, I know that's not the vision of 'hell' all have - what with the pitchforks and all.. But indeed, many do believe unsaved folks are cast there upon their death.. Just imagine some poor 'soul' who lived under Audi (dang iPhone spellcheck!) Amin or the like all their life (and never heard the Good News of the Gospel) finding themselves there at their death.. Without ever facing their judge or being given the chance, well, of any kind..

And we wonder why atheism has flourished?? [Note: some of the nicest, most conscientious persons I know, are atheist. So the simple "they reject God's will because of their sinful, hard and rebellious heart", to me, simply does not fly and is in no way logical as a blanket reasoning. I believe the hell myth as become part of the whole package has made the gospel very hard to believe. And in atheist vs Christian discussion, God as mean maker of hell is a top comment- that and how modern scientific theory has disproved God :LH:

For those who believe the LOF is 'hell' and people are only cast there after judgment.. just imagine the subterranean fiery pit existing empty all this time..

(Never mind that 'hell' / hades, before legend, simply the grave?/unseen? are cast into the LOF, the 2nd death)

[CST]

That's really something is t it?! How some believe hell is a place, I guess, created when the universe and earth was.. And is (likely?) a subterranean place of fiery torment where the devil ("slanderer") and his minions get to toast all unsaved people, large and small, and toss them around with their pitchforks.. Hmmm, oh dear. Yes, either Yahweh most high and al-mighty couldn't do any better, or He just doesn't care. And how is this punishment for Satan ("adversary")??

I'm being sarcastic aren't I?  :Chinscratch:

Of course, I know that's not the vision of 'hell' all have - what with the pitchforks and all.. But indeed, many do believe unsaved folks are cast there upon their death.. Just imagine some poor 'soul' who lived under Audi (dang iPhone spellcheck!) Amin or the like all their life (and never heard the Good News of the Gospel) finding themselves there at their death.. Without ever facing their judge or being given the chance, well, of any kind..

And we wonder why atheism has flourished?? [Note: some of the nicest, most conscientious persons I know, are atheist. So the simple "they reject God's will because of their sinful, hard and rebellious heart", to me, simply does not fly and is in no way logical as a blanket reasoning. I believe the hell myth as become part of the whole package has made the gospel very hard to believe. And in atheist vs Christian discussion, God as mean maker of hell is a top comment- that and how modern scientific theory has disproved God :LH:

For those who believe the LOF is 'hell' and people are only cast there after judgment.. just imagine the subterranean fiery pit existing empty all this time..

(Never mind that 'hell' / hades, before legend, simply the grave?/unseen? are cast into the LOF, the 2nd death)

And demons, atheists find the concept of demons particularly spurious. It's hard to know why people came to believe that Satan was ruler of Hell when the Bible specifically states he's in there to be tormented. If any of the characters described is likely to be representative of the torment going on in the Lake of Fire it would be Hades I'd have thought.

The fact we don't have to imagine Hell existing all the time was one of my above arguments. We only need to imagine it existing in time for the judgement.

Hell is a complicated concept, everlasting damnation isn't though - it's wrong.