Is there really a Hell?

[Elheru Aran]

In Lucifer, the explanation (don't know how rooted in traditional cosmology this is, mind you) is that the first two beings created by God were Michael Demiurgos and Lucifer the Lightbringer. Michael was the Creator, with the germinating force of the Demiurge in his body; Lucifer was the Star-Maker, the one who brought Light to the worlds.

[Lord Zentei]

Satan was originally the Accuser - who would stand before you and God and announce your sins.

Actually, everything I've heard points to Lucifer being Heaven's chief musician before his "fall". So specialized was his role that he is said to have had musical instruments as part of his form (and also given as a semi-serious excuse for why Christian music sucks so much- Heaven lost its talent). Perhaps his role as "Accuser" comes from him also being the leader of the Seraphim.

Although, that doesn't really make any sense. Before Lucifer's fall humans didn't even exist, let alone become "corrupted".

First time I heard that version.

The Muslim tradition has Iblis refusing to bow down before Adam, the first man, since "why should a son of fire bow down to a son of clay?" for which God casts him out, and Iblis attempts to cause mankind to stray from God's path.

[Knife]

Satan was originally the Accuser - who would stand before you and God and announce your sins.

Actually, everything I've heard points to Lucifer being Heaven's chief musician before his "fall". So specialized was his role that he is said to have had musical instruments as part of his form (and also given as a semi-serious excuse for why Christian music sucks so much- Heaven lost its talent). Perhaps his role as "Accuser" comes from him also being the leader of the Seraphim.

Although, that doesn't really make any sense. Before Lucifer's fall humans didn't even exist, let alone become "corrupted".

It changes because you're looking at the blending of varous myths into one enity. Jewish tradition has Samiel as the Satan (accuser). Satan is the title, not the name and the first Angle bore the job.

I beleive that prodomanately Islam has the story about Satan refusing to bow before man, but Jewish apacrapha has it as well, and way earlier. Add a dash of Roman Lucifer, mix some pegan Pan, stir in a pot and you have the modern translation of the devil.

Enoch's travels IIRC are both in heaven and hell, and thats gnostic. It's been a while since I've read it, but I beleive that is also where you get the story of Azaziel, who was cast out of heavan as well and thrown into the 'PIT', which gets hell underground. Though I don't think Azaziel gets morphed into the Devil too often, just his prison.

[An Ancient]

With regards to the New Testament, it refers to fiery furnaces and Gehenna, but they are not, in analysis, referred to as everlasting areas of torture (you need to read the context and understand the Greek words used to fully appreciate this), but the basic summation is that it represents destruction, not everlating torture, as fire, especially historical Gehenna was used to permenantly destroy things, not torture them. It is doubtless because we have all had experience of the acute pain of being burned, that fire is associated in our minds with ‘conscious torment’. But the main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction, as all the world’s incinerators bear witness, nothing you put in them lasts very long at all.

[Rye]

With regards to the New Testament, it refers to fiery furnaces and Gehenna, but they are not, in analysis, referred to as everlasting areas of torture (you need to read the context and understand the Greek words used to fully appreciate this), but the basic summation is that it represents destruction, not everlating torture, as fire, especially historical Gehenna was used to permenantly destroy things, not torture them. It is doubtless because we have all had experience of the acute pain of being burned, that fire is associated in our minds with ‘conscious torment’. But the main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction, as all the world’s incinerators bear witness, nothing you put in them lasts very long at all.

Except I already posted passage references that disprove this idea.

Matthew 18:8-9 If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matthew 25:41, 46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

Mark 9:43-48 ... into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Luke 16:22-24 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 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.

There are other references that imply it's a second death and pure destruction, but it's just inane to say they all say that.

[NecronLord]

Jesus went to Shelob, not Hell, whne he descended to the dead.

Jesus would be so much cooler if he'd fought a twelve foot spider in the underworld on Easter Saturday.

[An Ancient]

Except I already posted passage references that disprove this idea.

Matthew 18:8-9 If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

This is the same 'everlasting fire' to which the Devil is later consigned, also, the next verse goes on to make equivilant mention of Gehenna, which represents destruction, not torment, the 'everlasting fire' is referenced as the lake of fire and suplher, the second death.

Matthew 25:41, 46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

Again, the everlasting fire is the same as the lake of fire and sulpher/second death, ie final destruction, as for 'everlasting punishment', the Bible doesn't say that, the original Greek word ko´la·sin means 'lopping off; pruning', ie removal, not punishment.

Mark 9:43-48 ... into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Again, the original text does not use 'hell', but Gehenna, destruction, the fires in Gehenna of the time never seemed to go out, but the stuff thrown into them was quickly destroyed.

Luke 16:22-24 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 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.

This passage is an illustration used by Jesus, you can't use it as aliteral basis for hell, otherwise you'd be left with things like a single drop of water being able to quench hell's fire, all heaven bound people fitting into one mans bosom, etc. The illustration represents the torment suffered by the subjects Jesus was referring to in real life, likewise, their 'deaths' are symbolic.

Note: If you're wondering where I got the original Greek words from, that'd be Wescott and Hort's New Testemant in Greek text.

[Vendetta]

This passage is an illustration used by Jesus, you can't use it as aliteral basis for hell, otherwise you'd be left with things like a single drop of water being able to quench hell's fire, all heaven bound people fitting into one mans bosom, etc. The illustration represents the torment suffered by the subjects Jesus was referring to in real life, likewise, their 'deaths' are symbolic.

Ahh, it's the good old "Yeah, but you can't take that bit literally game"

If we can play that game, you can pick and choose whatever you damn well please to be "literal" and the whole point of it being scripture is lost. After all, how can you tell that bit isn't meant to be taken literally? Can you fathom the mind of an all knowing God?

Either the text is all literally meant and inspired by God, or it's all figuratively meant and inspired by strange mushrooms.

[Steven Snyder]

The idea that the Religion classes at my school tout (Catholic) is that Hell is being placed as far as possible from God, in a place where His influence cannot be felt.
Sweet.

Wait, doesn't this logically dictate that God is not omnipotent? I would have loved to be sitting at your desk that day...

[General Zod]

This passage is an illustration used by Jesus, you can't use it as aliteral basis for hell, otherwise you'd be left with things like a single drop of water being able to quench hell's fire, all heaven bound people fitting into one mans bosom, etc. The illustration represents the torment suffered by the subjects Jesus was referring to in real life, likewise, their 'deaths' are symbolic.

Note: If you're wondering where I got the original Greek words from, that'd be Wescott and Hort's New Testemant in Greek text.

I suppose you have some other actual solid example of what we should uas as the basis for hell, then? Or can you perhaps provide a solid explanation as to why that particular piece should only be treated as symbolic to the exclusion of other passages?

[Rye]

Except I already posted passage references that disprove this idea.

Matthew 18:8-9 If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

Matthew 25:41, 46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. ... And these shall go away into everlasting punishment.

This is the same 'everlasting fire' to which the Devil is later consigned, also, the next verse goes on to make equivilant mention of Gehenna, which represents destruction, not torment, the 'everlasting fire' is referenced as the lake of fire and suplher, the second death.

Except the verse itself describes everlasting fire, and matt says in other parts everlasting torment Gehenna being a giant burning trash heap serves that illustration too, except it's eternal.

Check the commentary on matt 25:

"17 [41] Fire prepared . . . his angels: cf 1 Enoch 10, 13 where it is said of the evil angels and Semyaza, their leader, "In those days they will lead them into the bottom of the fire--and in torment--in the prison (where) they will be locked up forever.""

That seems to imply the hell as an eternal prison idea was amongst the jews at the time of the gospel writing, why should that be if it's meant to be thought of as pure destruction in all frames of reference?

Again, the everlasting fire is the same as the lake of fire and sulpher/second death, ie final destruction, as for 'everlasting punishment', the Bible doesn't say that, the original Greek word ko´la·sin means 'lopping off; pruning', ie removal, not punishment.

Kolasis is translated punishment on all the versions I've seen.

Here's the BLB reference to it:

1) correction, punishment, penalty



So I'm really going to need to see some evidence that what you say is a mainstream view.

Mark 9:43-48 ... into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Again, the original text does not use 'hell', but Gehenna, destruction, the fires in Gehenna of the time never seemed to go out, but the stuff thrown into them was quickly destroyed.

The difference here is in the real Gehenna, the worms would die, the worm not dying is an emphasis on the eternal nature of it.

Luke 16:22-24 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 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.

This passage is an illustration used by Jesus, you can't use it as aliteral basis for hell, otherwise you'd be left with things like a single drop of water being able to quench hell's fire, all heaven bound people fitting into one mans bosom, etc. The illustration represents the torment suffered by the subjects Jesus was referring to in real life, likewise, their 'deaths' are symbolic.

So, Hell is meant to be understood by all around to be a place of annihilation, yet he tailors a suffering parable into it? What do you base that on? That seems an odd choice for a parable.

Note: If you're wondering where I got the original Greek words from, that'd be Wescott and Hort's New Testemant in Greek text.

I would like to see the evidence for the scholarly consensus supporting this.

Either the text is all literally meant and inspired by God, or it's all figuratively meant and inspired by strange mushrooms.

Black/white fallacy ahoy!

[Dominus Atheos]

From what i 'know'...

There is a part in ancient Jewish text that was left out of the Bible, recently found a few decades ago, or some such, where Jesus is asked why God sends us to Hell if he truly loves us.

So Jesus told the guy, look there is no Hell, it's a myth that God made up so that he could scare humans into being good weather they wanted to or not.

[snip]

Thats how i've come to understand it, mind you this stuff wa sleft out of the Bible sometime in the Middle Ages cause the Church thought it sounded too 'liberal', and they prefered the nihilistic God over the threatening but genuinely good God, it seems.

That's Revelations Part II.

[Admiral Johnason]

From what i 'know'...

There is a part in ancient Jewish text that was left out of the Bible, recently found a few decades ago, or some such, where Jesus is asked why God sends us to Hell if he truly loves us.

So Jesus told the guy, look there is no Hell, it's a myth that God made up so that he could scare humans into being good weather they wanted to or not. Realizing humans would mostly only act good to each other out of fear of retribution he told them that there was a legion of fallen angels and burning underworld waiting for those who sinned and did bad.

BUT...in reality there is no such place. When you die you just go to Heaven, no matter what happened on Earth. The threat of Hell is just a tool used to enforce his laws.

Thats how i've come to understand it, mind you this stuff wa sleft out of the Bible sometime in the Middle Ages cause the Church thought it sounded too 'liberal', and they prefered the nihilistic God over the threatening but genuinely good God, it seems.

Sounds like the gospel of St. Peter. According to the gospel, Jesus said that Hell is temproary and that you would be let out at the end of the world or something.

[An Ancient]

Except the verse itself describes everlasting fire, and matt says in other parts everlasting torment Gehenna being a giant burning trash heap serves that illustration too, except it's eternal.

If you've got some other listings of 'everlasting torment' they'd be useful.

Also, that there is everlasting fire doesn't mean anything more than destruction, that the fire is everlasting has no bearing on what is put into the fire, an everlasting fire is just that, fire that burns forever, nothing about the things in it also sticking around for ever.

Check the commentary on matt 25:

"17 [41] Fire prepared . . . his angels: cf 1 Enoch 10, 13 where it is said of the evil angels and Semyaza, their leader, "In those days they will lead them into the bottom of the fire--and in torment--in the prison (where) they will be locked up forever.""

1 Enoch? Is that one of the apocrypha? I've never heard of it.

That seems to imply the hell as an eternal prison idea was amongst the jews at the time of the gospel writing, why should that be if it's meant to be thought of as pure destruction in all frames of reference?

It doesn't make reference (except in that odd book ref) to the things in it being everlasting, only that the fires are, fire destroys things quite well.

Kolasis is translated punishment on all the versions I've seen.
Here's the BLB reference to it:

1) correction, punishment, penalty

So I'm really going to need to see some evidence that what you say is a mainstream view.

The Emphatic Diaglott and Wescott and Hort's text both translate as lopping off/cutting off, it also contains this footnote;
"“Kolasin .... is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;—hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. "

The development of the definition of kolasis as punishment has stemmed from the adoption of the results of the original meaning being back-tracked into the meaning of the word itself. This has happened with some English words as well.

The difference here is in the real Gehenna, the worms would die, the worm not dying is an emphasis on the eternal nature of it.

Not really actually, Gehenna in real life was a valley full of rubbish someone had the bright idea to set fire to, the whole valley wasn't afire, or otherwise the city would've been smoked out, worms would've existed in the rubbish pile as well as fire, simply in the areas not burning or in the ledges and crevices of the valley, where things got stuck.

So, Hell is meant to be understood by all around to be a place of annihilation, yet he tailors a suffering parable into it? What do you base that on? That seems an odd choice for a parable.

No, not really, he makes no mention of hell in his parable, the original word used is 'Hades', not anything that can be linked to other supposed mentions of hell, since Acts 2:27 had Peter quoting Psalms 16:10, showing and equivilance between Hades and Sheol, which is simply the grave.

Remember the people the parable was applying to, both groups were still living and able to interact, but had figuratively 'died' as respects their former positions, which were now reversed. Jesus was not referring to literal death in the parable.

I would like to see the evidence for the scholarly consensus supporting this.

A quick Google under Wesctott and Hort should be easy enough.

Although they are unpopular with the KJV-only crowd.

[An Ancient]

I suppose you have some other actual solid example of what we should use as the basis for hell, then? Or can you perhaps provide a solid explanation as to why that particular piece should only be treated as symbolic to the exclusion of other passages?

Err, because it's a parable? Those things are sybolic almost by definition.

To define 'hell' you'd have to reference verses where Jesus or whoever was actually talking about death and the effects thereof.

[General Zod]

I suppose you have some other actual solid example of what we should use as the basis for hell, then? Or can you perhaps provide a solid explanation as to why that particular piece should only be treated as symbolic to the exclusion of other passages?

Err, because it's a parable? Those things are sybolic almost by definition.

To define 'hell' you'd have to reference verses where Jesus or whoever was actually talking about death and the effects thereof.

The parable was about what happens to rich greedy people when they died as opposed to what happens to poor virtuous people when they die. From what I can tell, it wasn't used to show what hell metaphorically was, but something completely different. So I repeat. What reason is there to believe that the hell described in the parable is any different than from what it's described as?

It's like arguing a lake is not a lake because it's in a parable, thus symbolic, so the lake must not be the way it's described in the parable.

[An Ancient]

The parable was about what happens to rich greedy people when they died as opposed to what happens to poor virtuous people when they die.

Well, I suppose that's your way of looking at it, mine is different, I see it as a parable comparing the Pharasee's and the Jew's they looked down on.

From what I can tell, it wasn't used to show what hell metaphorically was, but something completely different. So I repeat. What reason is there to believe that the hell described in the parable is any different than from what it's described as?

Err, probably because, as I said, it's not hell, that's a little add-on by whichever translator made the Bible the verse was quoted from, the original text says Hades, which = Sheol = Grave, and, like I said, it doesn't talk about literal death, but figuative 'death' in that the groups switch role's, thus 'dying' from their former posisitions.

It's like arguing a lake is not a lake because it's in a parable, thus symbolic, so the lake must not be the way it's described in the parable.

No, it's be more like someone comparing, say, someones bank account to a lake (big, expansive etc), that doesn't mean that persons bank account takes on the qualities of being large, full of water, fed by rivers and prone to flooding with some fish thrown in for good measure.

But then, I guess it depends on how you interpret the parable, which we appear to disagree on.

[General Zod]

Err, probably because, as I said, it's not hell, that's a little add-on by whichever translator made the Bible the verse was quoted from, the original text says Hades, which = Sheol = Grave, and, like I said, it doesn't talk about literal death, but figuative 'death' in that the groups switch role's, thus 'dying' from their former posisitions.

I suppose the bit about suffering in fiery torment was a translation error too?

No, it's be more like someone comparing, say, someones bank account to a lake (big, expansive etc), that doesn't mean that persons bank account takes on the qualities of being large, full of water, fed by rivers and prone to flooding with some fish thrown in for good measure.

I'm not seeing how hell is being compared to anything in here.

But then, I guess it depends on how you interpret the parable, which we appear to disagree on.

In other words, you're not going to bother explaining how it's different besides 'it's a screwup in translation', are you?

[An Ancient]

I suppose the bit about suffering in fiery torment was a translation error too?

No, but it says nothing about eternal torment, indeed, in fact, it refers to releif from it being possible. If you take the whole thing to apply to heaven and 'hell' literally, you also get that heaven and hell are so close the occupants can yell to each other.

I'm not seeing how hell is being compared to anything in here.

As I said, the parable isn't talking about hell, its referring to, not discussing, Hades.

In other words, you're not going to bother explaining how it's different besides 'it's a screwup in translation', are you?

Where did you get that? I said that hell was not originally in the text, Hades was, but I said nothing beyond that, what I was pointing out is that you beleive the parable to be about what happens to rich and poor when they die, I stated I beleive it to be about the Jewish religious leaders of the time and the people they oppressed, and how Jesus presence was turning their world upside down. If we disagree on what the parable is discussing, then any explanations I make about it's interpretation are going to seem meaningless to you since you have a different take on it. Understand?

[wolveraptor]

From what i 'know'...

There is a part in ancient Jewish text that was left out of the Bible, recently found a few decades ago, or some such, where Jesus is asked why God sends us to Hell if he truly loves us.

So Jesus told the guy, look there is no Hell, it's a myth that God made up so that he could scare humans into being good weather they wanted to or not. Realizing humans would mostly only act good to each other out of fear of retribution he told them that there was a legion of fallen angels and burning underworld waiting for those who sinned and did bad.

BUT...in reality there is no such place. When you die you just go to Heaven, no matter what happened on Earth. The threat of Hell is just a tool used to enforce his laws.

Thats how i've come to understand it, mind you this stuff wa sleft out of the Bible sometime in the Middle Ages cause the Church thought it sounded too 'liberal', and they prefered the nihilistic God over the threatening but genuinely good God, it seems.

That does seem a little far-fetched. I'ts like an overly convenient biblical justification of liberal Christian beliefs. Do you remember where you heard of this?

[FSTargetDrone]

I believe the Reverend Lovejoy said it best:

I know one of you is responsible for this, so repeat after me: If I withhold the truth, may I go straight to Hell, where I will eat naught but burning hot coals and drink naught but burning hot cola; where fiery demons will punch me in the back; where my soul will be chopped into confetti and strewn upon a parade of murderers and single mothers; where my tongue will be torn out by ravenous birds!

[wilfulton]

Is there a hell? Most verifiably yes. That's where I go every morning. Not really a realm of fire, but a lot of paperwork, bureaucracy, and idiocy. And yes, the office furniture itself conspires to form a sort of cubicle.

Whosoever said hell is a realm of fire wasn't very creative...

[18-Till-I-Die]

From what i 'know'...

There is a part in ancient Jewish text that was left out of the Bible, recently found a few decades ago, or some such, where Jesus is asked why God sends us to Hell if he truly loves us.

So Jesus told the guy, look there is no Hell, it's a myth that God made up so that he could scare humans into being good weather they wanted to or not. Realizing humans would mostly only act good to each other out of fear of retribution he told them that there was a legion of fallen angels and burning underworld waiting for those who sinned and did bad.

BUT...in reality there is no such place. When you die you just go to Heaven, no matter what happened on Earth. The threat of Hell is just a tool used to enforce his laws.

Thats how i've come to understand it, mind you this stuff wa sleft out of the Bible sometime in the Middle Ages cause the Church thought it sounded too 'liberal', and they prefered the nihilistic God over the threatening but genuinely good God, it seems.

That does seem a little far-fetched. I'ts like an overly convenient biblical justification of liberal Christian beliefs. Do you remember where you heard of this?

On a show where they were talking about stories which were in the original Bible, but taken out during the Middle Ages and the 19th century because the Church didnt like them. This was one of some series of "books" which were "banned" from the Bible, but it was there originally for like hundreds of years before it was taken out, IIRC.

It was several years ago, i believe it was either the Discovery Channel or History Channel.

They also, if i recall, mentioned a story where it was implied Mary Magdalene (sp?) was Jesus' right hand...er, girl? Anyway, she was considered the most important Apostle, by his own words, she was his second-in-command. But the Church got rid of that too.

The title of the show was litterly, "Banned (or Lost) Books of the Bible" if i recall.

Sorry if i cant give you anything more exact, or if i got this wrong, it was a long time ago, like a year or two.

[Knife]

On a show where they were talking about stories which were in the original Bible, but taken out during the Middle Ages and the 19th century because the Church didnt like them. This was one of some series of "books" which were "banned" from the Bible, but it was there originally for like hundreds of years before it was taken out, IIRC.

It was several years ago, i believe it was either the Discovery Channel or History Channel.

They also, if i recall, mentioned a story where it was implied Mary Magdalene (sp?) was Jesus' right hand...er, girl? Anyway, she was considered the most important Apostle, by his own words, she was his second-in-command. But the Church got rid of that too.

The title of the show was litterly, "Banned (or Lost) Books of the Bible" if i recall.

Sorry if i cant give you anything more exact, or if i got this wrong, it was a long time ago, like a year or two.

Christiananity has it's apocrapha just as the Jews do. Gospel of Thomas, the lost years of Jesus, Gospel of Mary, etc....A shit load found it's way into the Gnostic branch of the religeon, others are just forgotten.

Oddly enough, most church leaders discount them because they are written or though to have been written mostly around ~200-~300AD. Which is funny since the four gospels they do use are only ~100 years older.

[b00tleg]

The Ultimate Hell is brought on by the Lament Configuration.


"Go ahead, take it....it was always yours to begin with."


Whether Hell exists physically or metaphysically, I think the main point is that we all choose our own Hell.