Paulwat said:

Not sure what board to post this in. Please feel free to move to another area of the board if it works better there.

So, I saw a post today that interested me and searched it up and found lots of similar results from other people. Apparantly hell isn't a real place and instead is a mistranslation. Apparantly awful people don't get eternal suffering and instead just cease to exist (similar to how life was for them before being born)

Here's the full post and explanation. It was reassuring to hear this as I worry about peolle I know going to hell and hate to imagine them being tortured. So it's nice to know such a place doesn't exist


perhaps you could start by realizing just how ridiculous the entire idea is and how it really isn't even supported by the scriptures.

This concept of “Hell” as a place of ‘eternal suffering in a lake of fire’ that Christians so often try to scare people with is all made up by humans and doesn't even exist in the 'old testament' and is not well supported by the 'new testament' either...

every single 'old testament' reference to "hell" is a mistranslations of the Jewish concept of "Sheol" which is distinctly different from what most people today refer to as "Hell".

• 1: Sheol is temporary - not 'eternal'. you are only there until 'judgment day'.
• 2: everyone goes to Sheol to await judgment day. (good or bad, believer or not).
• 3: everyone in Sheol atones for their misdeeds in life. everyone, regardless of whether they "have faith" or not. You don't escape punishment for your misdeeds in life just because you 'have faith'. THAT was an invention (apparently of Paul).
• 4: after judgment: the 'truly wicked' are annihilated: They 'cease to exist'. They are not "punished for the rest of eternity. (That view is not supported by anything in the bible outside of 'revelation' (and even that is pretty thin)
• 5: after judgment: everyone else goes to "Olam Ha'Bah" (aka "the world to come"; "gan eden" or "the Garden of Eden). - This did NOT require belief in or worship of "YHWH" it was based on whether you were a decent person in life; not "blind faith".

outside of 'revelation" The "New Testament" does not refer to this concept of 'eternal punishment' at all. not once, not anywhere. It is ONLY mentioned in the "Book of Revelation" (aka "The Apocalypse of John") and even those references are pretty flimsy evidence.

every "New Testament" reference to "Hell" in modern translations are mistranslating one of three words. “Hades” (which means “the grave” and does not imply torment); "Tartarus" (which appears only one time in 2 Peter 2:4) and "Gehenna".

• Tartarus is a specific reference to the pagan concept of the 'lowest level of hades'; The word “Tartarus” is arguably the closest word used to this concept of eternal torment but this word is only used in one specific verse: 2 Peter 2:4 which is talking about a place where "fallen angels" are sent and is never mentioned as a destination for humans. - Also note that this same verse clearly limits the time spent in that place to "until judgment".
• Gehenna is an actual physical place in Jerusalem, it was (in the first century CE) possibly a trash dump, garbage we know dead bodies were taken there and burned in a 'eternal fire' (a constantly burning fire that was always burning garbage). it was considered a "cursed place" due to legends about people sacrificing children there. It was mentioned in a lot of parables; often 'jesus' talking about wealthy people ending up in Gehenna (just like all the poor people). essentially saying that all their wealth doesn't save them from eventually dying and being thrown into the trash heap. - The parables did seem to imply that “Gehenna” was some undesirable place but it’s very dishonest to claim that the word literally translates to the common concept called “Hell”.

The words translated into “Eternal Punishment” in Matthew 25:46 (for instance) is also a mistranslation. The word they translate as “eternal” there is “αἰώνῐος” which is more correctly translated as “lasting for an age”. If you note the same exact word is mistranslated to ‘eternal’ in modern translations of Jude 1:7 where Sodom and Gomorrah are supposedly destroyed by “eternal fire” - Those fires are clearly not burning today as we’ve never found any such remnants anywhere on earth of this supposedly never ending fire. The other part of that phrase for “Punishment” is also a poor translation of “kolasis” which was an agricultural term basically meaning “cut off” or “prune” - possibly suggesting the concept where you “prune away part of a plant and the rest of the plant gets stronger”. It could possibly refer to “punitive correction” as opposed to some eternal torment or possibly it refers to being ‘cut off from paradise/eternal life’ which is effectively what happens when you cease to exist. - you aren’t suffering but you are denied eternal life and entry to paradise ‘for eternity’ since you no longer exist.

Outside of Revelation the most common


Outside of Revelation the most common thing people tend to bring up to support this 'eternal suffering in a lake of fire' nonsense is the story from Luke 16:19-31 of "lazarus and rich man". That parable however does not suggest "eternal suffering" at all.

• 1: Abraham, Lazarus and "Rich Man" are all in the same place. - That already sounds a lot more like "Sheol" than "Hell". the claim that all of them talking to each other is clearly not a reference to one being "in heaven" and the other "in hell" since these places are always depicted as separate.
• 2: "Rich Man" is suffering but... he's complaining about "being thirsty".... if he were burning in a lake of fire I think he'd have bigger problems than 'parched lips'.
• 3: Nothing about that story says anything to suggest that the suffering is eternal; it only implies that "Rich Man" is suffering currently, not what his fate would be down the road.

Then we have the claims from "Revelation":

• 1: the "Second Death" is mentioned 4 times in this book; and described as the "Death of the soul"
• 2: Revelation 20:6 states that only people named in the "book of life" (those "on the right") receive "eternal life" - this gift of eternal life is ONLY for the righteous people that pass into paradise.
• 3: Revelation 20:10 states that the 'beast', the 'false prophet' (aka the antichrist) and 'satan' are cast into the lake of fire where they will "suffer for ever and ever" - note that none of these entities are 'human'.
• 4: then in Revelation 20:15 - the people who's name did not appear in the 'book of life' (those "on the left") are also cast into the same lake of fire where they "suffer the second death". - Note the different language... it does not say "suffer for ever and ever" but instead states that they "suffer the second death" - this suggests that their soul dies.. which is "Annihilation" not "eternal suffering". How can there be "eternal suffering" for people that do not have "eternal life"? - (see note 2 above).

Nothing about "eternal suffering" is consistent with anything in the bible. "Eternal suffering" is sadistic cruelty without any purpose or benefit. - It makes no rational sense if they are also trying to claim that 'god' is benevolent, loving, merciful etc. - Totally logically inconsistent with this view.





In the early days of the christian church there were several competing views of the afterlife that are a lot more consistent with the rest of the bible:

• Annihilation" is the belief that "after judgment" the "truly wicked" are annihilated; they 'cease to exist' and that's it... no further suffering; they are gone. end of story. This is exactly what the Jewish traditional view of Sheol mentioned above taught and is logically consistent with the 'old testament'.
• "universal salvation" or "universalism" is the belief that eventually everyone is saved. - This view treats suffering/punishment in the afterlife as reformative/corrective/judicial - meant to correct the recipient and is finite in duration - once you have atoned for your sins you get to move on to paradise with all the other people that ever lived. These were both pretty popular views in the early christian sects prior to ~425 CE;

The early christian sects disagreed considerably about which of these three views was 'correct'. “Basil the Great” specifically commented in ~370CE that the dominant view (of the time) was a belief in a limited purgatory, and others (such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus the blind, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote extensively about Universalism. There were some (mostly in Northern Africa around the coast of modern day Tunisia/Algeria) that were advocating the view of “Eternal Torment” but it wasn't until 425CE that the church unified on this 'eternal suffering' doctrine (largely through the writings of Augustine of Hippo – who came to Rome from a city near what is now Annaba Tunisia). This became the official version the church went with and the other views were deemed "heretical" and banned along with any early christian scriptures that supported those opposing views (such as the "Apocalypse of Peter").

Click to expand...

Michie said:

Can a young child truly be saved and on their way to Heaven? Can he or she be in the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth, one of those who is a genuine believer?

A Christian educator once said that the faith of a child — up to age 12 — could be called a “borrowed faith”; this faith could be borrowed from his parents or a Sunday school teacher. Then, in his early teens, the child would develop their “chosen faith,” ultimately moving on to their “owned faith.”

Now, when we think of a borrowed faith, do we also think of it as a saving faith? Not exactly, and not something you’d want to count on when you’re not totally confident.

Let’s see what Jesus had to say about children’s salvation. “At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, ‘Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, ‘Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven’” (Matthew 18:1-4).

Okay, so the disciples have a different question than I originally posed; they want to know who’s the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus calls a little child. In case you question whether this really is a young child, the Greek word is paidión, which means “little” or “young.” So, he didn’t just call a child, he called a little child. Now remember, in that culture, a 13-year-old boy enters manhood. Young people were married at 16. So, if they are calling a child little, they mean little.

Continued below.

Can a young child become a Christian?

Can a young child truly be saved and on their way to Heaven

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

Trump says U.S. seized oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela​

U.S. forces have seized an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, President Donald Trump said Wednesday.

“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela — a large tanker,” Trump said during a meeting in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. He provided no detail on who owned the tanker or its destination.

[Trump] would not rule out a ground invasion of the South American nation.

(Ok, armchair generals, what sort of response would be justified for this provocation?)

Click to expand...

narnia59 said:

You mean because God told them to not eat of the tree, he was setting them up for failure?

Click to expand...

essentialsaltes said:

living or sitting

Click to expand...

ThatRobGuy said:

Right, but when they did have that power the last time, they flubbed it.

So my question remains, what will be different about the 120th congress compared to the 116th congress?

Click to expand...

timothyu said:

Yes or God wouldn't have given them a command

Click to expand...

Dan Perez said:

And I see that you. are quoting some good verses but the TARES and WHEAT. is still speaking STILL. about ISRAL. and the

BODY of CHRIST begins with SAUL in Acts 9:5 and the BACK. up PROOF is. in. 1 TIM 1:16 as SAUL was the

FIRST ONE. //. P[ROTOS. that in ME. /. join. the Greek EMPHATIC , meaning. ONLY ME and no one ELSE. , PERIOD

Where many make mistakes are in ROM chapter 11. !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Paulwat said:

Not sure what board to post this in. Please feel free to move to another area of the board if it works better there.

So, I saw a post today that interested me and searched it up and found lots of similar results from other people. Apparantly hell isn't a real place and instead is a mistranslation. Apparantly awful people don't get eternal suffering and instead just cease to exist (similar to how life was for them before being born)

Here's the full post and explanation. It was reassuring to hear this as I worry about peolle I know going to hell and hate to imagine them being tortured. So it's nice to know such a place doesn't exist


perhaps you could start by realizing just how ridiculous the entire idea is and how it really isn't even supported by the scriptures.

This concept of “Hell” as a place of ‘eternal suffering in a lake of fire’ that Christians so often try to scare people with is all made up by humans and doesn't even exist in the 'old testament' and is not well supported by the 'new testament' either...

every single 'old testament' reference to "hell" is a mistranslations of the Jewish concept of "Sheol" which is distinctly different from what most people today refer to as "Hell".

• 1: Sheol is temporary - not 'eternal'. you are only there until 'judgment day'.
• 2: everyone goes to Sheol to await judgment day. (good or bad, believer or not).
• 3: everyone in Sheol atones for their misdeeds in life. everyone, regardless of whether they "have faith" or not. You don't escape punishment for your misdeeds in life just because you 'have faith'. THAT was an invention (apparently of Paul).
• 4: after judgment: the 'truly wicked' are annihilated: They 'cease to exist'. They are not "punished for the rest of eternity. (That view is not supported by anything in the bible outside of 'revelation' (and even that is pretty thin)
• 5: after judgment: everyone else goes to "Olam Ha'Bah" (aka "the world to come"; "gan eden" or "the Garden of Eden). - This did NOT require belief in or worship of "YHWH" it was based on whether you were a decent person in life; not "blind faith".

outside of 'revelation" The "New Testament" does not refer to this concept of 'eternal punishment' at all. not once, not anywhere. It is ONLY mentioned in the "Book of Revelation" (aka "The Apocalypse of John") and even those references are pretty flimsy evidence.

every "New Testament" reference to "Hell" in modern translations are mistranslating one of three words. “Hades” (which means “the grave” and does not imply torment); "Tartarus" (which appears only one time in 2 Peter 2:4) and "Gehenna".

• Tartarus is a specific reference to the pagan concept of the 'lowest level of hades'; The word “Tartarus” is arguably the closest word used to this concept of eternal torment but this word is only used in one specific verse: 2 Peter 2:4 which is talking about a place where "fallen angels" are sent and is never mentioned as a destination for humans. - Also note that this same verse clearly limits the time spent in that place to "until judgment".
• Gehenna is an actual physical place in Jerusalem, it was (in the first century CE) possibly a trash dump, garbage we know dead bodies were taken there and burned in a 'eternal fire' (a constantly burning fire that was always burning garbage). it was considered a "cursed place" due to legends about people sacrificing children there. It was mentioned in a lot of parables; often 'jesus' talking about wealthy people ending up in Gehenna (just like all the poor people). essentially saying that all their wealth doesn't save them from eventually dying and being thrown into the trash heap. - The parables did seem to imply that “Gehenna” was some undesirable place but it’s very dishonest to claim that the word literally translates to the common concept called “Hell”.

The words translated into “Eternal Punishment” in Matthew 25:46 (for instance) is also a mistranslation. The word they translate as “eternal” there is “αἰώνῐος” which is more correctly translated as “lasting for an age”. If you note the same exact word is mistranslated to ‘eternal’ in modern translations of Jude 1:7 where Sodom and Gomorrah are supposedly destroyed by “eternal fire” - Those fires are clearly not burning today as we’ve never found any such remnants anywhere on earth of this supposedly never ending fire. The other part of that phrase for “Punishment” is also a poor translation of “kolasis” which was an agricultural term basically meaning “cut off” or “prune” - possibly suggesting the concept where you “prune away part of a plant and the rest of the plant gets stronger”. It could possibly refer to “punitive correction” as opposed to some eternal torment or possibly it refers to being ‘cut off from paradise/eternal life’ which is effectively what happens when you cease to exist. - you aren’t suffering but you are denied eternal life and entry to paradise ‘for eternity’ since you no longer exist.

Outside of Revelation the most common


Outside of Revelation the most common thing people tend to bring up to support this 'eternal suffering in a lake of fire' nonsense is the story from Luke 16:19-31 of "lazarus and rich man". That parable however does not suggest "eternal suffering" at all.

• 1: Abraham, Lazarus and "Rich Man" are all in the same place. - That already sounds a lot more like "Sheol" than "Hell". the claim that all of them talking to each other is clearly not a reference to one being "in heaven" and the other "in hell" since these places are always depicted as separate.
• 2: "Rich Man" is suffering but... he's complaining about "being thirsty".... if he were burning in a lake of fire I think he'd have bigger problems than 'parched lips'.
• 3: Nothing about that story says anything to suggest that the suffering is eternal; it only implies that "Rich Man" is suffering currently, not what his fate would be down the road.

Then we have the claims from "Revelation":

• 1: the "Second Death" is mentioned 4 times in this book; and described as the "Death of the soul"
• 2: Revelation 20:6 states that only people named in the "book of life" (those "on the right") receive "eternal life" - this gift of eternal life is ONLY for the righteous people that pass into paradise.
• 3: Revelation 20:10 states that the 'beast', the 'false prophet' (aka the antichrist) and 'satan' are cast into the lake of fire where they will "suffer for ever and ever" - note that none of these entities are 'human'.
• 4: then in Revelation 20:15 - the people who's name did not appear in the 'book of life' (those "on the left") are also cast into the same lake of fire where they "suffer the second death". - Note the different language... it does not say "suffer for ever and ever" but instead states that they "suffer the second death" - this suggests that their soul dies.. which is "Annihilation" not "eternal suffering". How can there be "eternal suffering" for people that do not have "eternal life"? - (see note 2 above).

Nothing about "eternal suffering" is consistent with anything in the bible. "Eternal suffering" is sadistic cruelty without any purpose or benefit. - It makes no rational sense if they are also trying to claim that 'god' is benevolent, loving, merciful etc. - Totally logically inconsistent with this view.





In the early days of the christian church there were several competing views of the afterlife that are a lot more consistent with the rest of the bible:

• Annihilation" is the belief that "after judgment" the "truly wicked" are annihilated; they 'cease to exist' and that's it... no further suffering; they are gone. end of story. This is exactly what the Jewish traditional view of Sheol mentioned above taught and is logically consistent with the 'old testament'.
• "universal salvation" or "universalism" is the belief that eventually everyone is saved. - This view treats suffering/punishment in the afterlife as reformative/corrective/judicial - meant to correct the recipient and is finite in duration - once you have atoned for your sins you get to move on to paradise with all the other people that ever lived. These were both pretty popular views in the early christian sects prior to ~425 CE;

The early christian sects disagreed considerably about which of these three views was 'correct'. “Basil the Great” specifically commented in ~370CE that the dominant view (of the time) was a belief in a limited purgatory, and others (such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus the blind, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote extensively about Universalism. There were some (mostly in Northern Africa around the coast of modern day Tunisia/Algeria) that were advocating the view of “Eternal Torment” but it wasn't until 425CE that the church unified on this 'eternal suffering' doctrine (largely through the writings of Augustine of Hippo – who came to Rome from a city near what is now Annaba Tunisia). This became the official version the church went with and the other views were deemed "heretical" and banned along with any early christian scriptures that supported those opposing views (such as the "Apocalypse of Peter"

Click to expand...

Yarddog said:

AI generated:
Biblical allegory is the interpretation of a biblical story or passage as having a symbolic meaning beyond its literal meaning, where characters, events, and settings represent abstract ideas or spiritual truths. Examples include the story of Adam and Eve symbolizing the fall into sin, or the story of Sarah and Hagar representing the old and new covenants, respectively.

Thus, Adam can be a literal person and also be an allegory, as Sarah is the new Covenant, according to Paul.

Click to expand...

AaronClaricus said:

Of course this interpretation would also support the hypothesis of pre-adamic men.

Click to expand...

Ivan Hlavanda said:

What then, were the authors of Genesis 2-3 and of Romans 5, who both speak of Adam, intending to convey? Genesis 2-3 does not show any of signs of “exalted prose narrative” or poetry. It reads as the account of real events; it looks like history.

Click to expand...

Studyman said:

.


I find it so amazing that you can not grasp this simple truth that is revealed on the very first sentence of your AI generated post.

Click to expand...

Job 33:6 said:

In academic biblical studies, a significant proportion of respected scholars interpret Adam as archetypal, symbolic, or theological, not necessarily historical.

Click to expand...

Bro.T said:

I agree, but Grace is nothing more than a free gift. And that free gift is our access back to the tree of life (Jesus) which Adam caused us to lose by disobeying God. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (Romans 5: 12) But to maintain your grace you must keep the law. (1John 3:4) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) It doesn’t matter what you or I think sin is, it’s what God says sin is that counts.

Click to expand...

Dan Perez said:

And GLAD to see you AND I LOVE when all would give a verse for your belief. and always GLAD to exchange

anyone. POSOITIONS. and as you know that I always GIVE. with the GREEK WORD and tying to explain what the TENSE
CASES so that everyone will see that I have NOT ADDED or . TALKEN AWAY. from. any verse and any one will. see that OLD

COVEMNANT has been TAKEN AWAY. and Heb 9:18. says that the blood of ANIMAL does not take AWAY TAKE. AWAY
SIN. and that ONLY the JESUS BLOOD. can take away sin. to be SAVED and remember EPH 1:3 CHOSEN

IN. him. BEFORE // PRO the OVER THROW. of the WORLD. !!

And. if. the NEW COVENANT for today , no one has yet explained how anyone is saved by the NEW COVENANT. !!

dan p

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

@Studyman

Here is my OP again. I’m going to post real slow so you can comprehend what I am posting. No AI was used.

“The writings of Ellen White, a prophet of the Seventh Day Adventist church, teach that those who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast and will reject the seal of God. In other words, the vast majority of Christians are doomed for worshipping our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday.

(These are my own words. No AI here)


Here are her writings:


(“Her” refers to Ellen White in case you missed it)

Reception of Mark of the Beast Future—The change of the Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

@Studyman

Here is my OP again. I’m going to post real slow so you can comprehend what I am posting. No AI was used.

“The writings of Ellen White, a prophet of the Seventh Day Adventist church, teach that those who worship on Sunday will receive the mark of the beast and will reject the seal of God. In other words, the vast majority of Christians are doomed for worshipping our Lord on Sunday instead of Saturday.

(These are my own words. No AI here)


Here are her writings:


(“Her” refers to Ellen White in case you missed it)

Reception of Mark of the Beast Future—"The change of the Sabbath" is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish church.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

Yep. I do, however, the SDA considers the 4th commandment to be a moral commandment. This means that those going to services on Sunday are sinning and if they don’t repent then they are lost. Quite the legalism.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

I had a look at a few of them. No jagged edges, especially when you zoom in.

Click to expand...

prodromos said:

That is what you are full of.

Click to expand...

Oompa Loompa said:

Terrorist enemy combatants

Click to expand...

Jipsah said:

How big a sin does it require to make God turn into a merciless, implacable monster?

Click to expand...