Annihilationism and the NT
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-08-2013, 03:41 PM
 
Annihilationism and the NT
One of the key factors that made me question the Christian morality was when I found how many Christians, people I admired and respected, passionately defended the doctrine of eternal torment in hell.
So much that they'd twist or intentionally misinterpret Biblical passages in order to fit their doctrine.

Now, I've searched some previous threads (as I'm new here) and found that it's a consensus here that hell is not taught in the OT. But what about the NT?

The verses that are often quoted by "traditionalists" are Revelation 14:10-11:
"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
"

Compare this with Isaiah 34:8-10:
"For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever."

So we can see here that the same motives are used, yet the fire spoken of is no longer burning.

Again, compare:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:43-44)

...with Isaiah 66:24:
"And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

"Abhorring" makes sense along with Daniel 12:2:
"And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

Note that the entire NT always contrasts punishment with life. The authors didn't believe in unconditional immortality for humans. Paul says in Romans 2:7:
"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life"
If they seek immortality, then they don't already possess it. Apparently Paul believed that only the righteous will attain it.

Any thoughts?
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Philosoraptor's post
04-09-2013, 02:38 PM
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
I'd be happy to discuss annihilationism with you. It seems to be a sound and reasonable alternative to an eternal Hell. My objections would include:

1) Hell is not the medieval place of suffering the Catholics keep their sheep in line with. It is, however, a place of unending regret and severe discomfort, in a body that can handle more discomfort than we can now (and eternally does not require food, either).

2) The Bible is consistent on the issues. For example, you quoted Romans 2:7 about seeking eternal life without quoting other verses about other people finding god's wrath and indignation long after they've died.

3) Annihilationism is a works-based system. God's wrath is satisfied when the person is expiated for their own sin. That is "doing something" that is capable of satisfying a final payment for sin. The Bible offers two alternatives, have Jesus pay for one's sin or go into the endless loop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 06:10 PM
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
(04-09-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'd be happy to discuss annihilationism with you. It seems to be a sound and reasonable alternative to an eternal Hell. My objections would include:

1) Hell is not the medieval place of suffering the Catholics keep their sheep in line with. It is, however, a place of unending regret and severe discomfort, in a body that can handle more discomfort than we can now (and eternally does not require food, either).

2) The Bible is consistent on the issues. For example, you quoted Romans 2:7 about seeking eternal life without quoting other verses about other people finding god's wrath and indignation long after they've died.

3) Annihilationism is a works-based system. God's wrath is satisfied when the person is expiated for their own sin. That is "doing something" that is capable of satisfying a final payment for sin. The Bible offers two alternatives, have Jesus pay for one's sin or go into the endless loop.

And tell me, really... how can you know any of this is true?

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 06:21 PM
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
I think the passages from Isaiah don't actually describe a place called "Hell"... but are referring to what God will do to the earth at Armageddon.

Perhaps describing what would happen to those left behind after the rapture... the whole earth being reduced to a "hellish" place.

God's not a very nice bloke really...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 09:16 PM
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
(04-09-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It is, however, a place of unending regret and severe discomfort, in a body that can handle more discomfort than we can now (and eternally does not require food, either).

2) The Bible is consistent on the issues. For example, you quoted Romans 2:7 about seeking eternal life without quoting other verses about other people finding god's wrath and indignation long after they've died.

Prove it. Everything about hell is illogical, and infantile.
Hell is not a Biblical concept. You make up shit, Pleasy, and expect reasonable people to buy it, because you say it. The BIble is UTTERLY INCONSISTENT. If hell didn't exist in the OT, to say it is "consistent", is 100 % bullshit, and YOU know it. Sheol is not a place of torment. Thanks for proving yet again, you actually know nothing about the Bible, or the culture it came from. Scholars agree. Paul thought immortality was only for the saved. The LONG history of the development of the notion of immortality is WAY beyond your level of infantile religious nonsense.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-09-2013, 09:47 PM
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
(04-09-2013 09:16 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-09-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It is, however, a place of unending regret and severe discomfort, in a body that can handle more discomfort than we can now (and eternally does not require food, either).

2) The Bible is consistent on the issues. For example, you quoted Romans 2:7 about seeking eternal life without quoting other verses about other people finding god's wrath and indignation long after they've died.

Prove it. Everything about hell is illogical, and infantile.
Hell is not a Biblical concept. You make up shit, Pleasy, and expect reasonable people to buy it, because you say it. The BIble is UTTERLY INCONSISTENT. If hell didn't exist in the OT, to say it is "consistent", is 100 % bullshit, and YOU know it. Sheol is not a place of torment. Thanks for proving yet again, you actually know nothing about the Bible, or the culture it came from. Scholars agree. Paul thought immortality was only for the saved. The LONG history of the development of the notion of immortality is WAY beyond your level of infantile religious nonsense.

It's my understanding that Hell evolved out of syncretism that was the Jewish/Greek mystery religion known as the Jesus Movement, the starting point of Christianity. Hell gets a lot of it's 'character' from the Greek underworld of Hades, and the name itself was borrowed from the much later Norse god of the dead (Hel). It has little to do with the Sheol of the Jewish tradition.

I'm sure Bucky will correct me if I'm wrong.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2013, 09:49 PM
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
(04-09-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I'd be happy to discuss annihilationism with you. It seems to be a sound and reasonable alternative to an eternal Hell. My objections would include:

1) Hell is not the medieval place of suffering the Catholics keep their sheep in line with. It is, however, a place of unending regret and severe discomfort, in a body that can handle more discomfort than we can now (and eternally does not require food, either).

2) The Bible is consistent on the issues. For example, you quoted Romans 2:7 about seeking eternal life without quoting other verses about other people finding god's wrath and indignation long after they've died.

3) Annihilationism is a works-based system. God's wrath is satisfied when the person is expiated for their own sin. That is "doing something" that is capable of satisfying a final payment for sin. The Bible offers two alternatives, have Jesus pay for one's sin or go into the endless loop.

1) How do you know?

2) How do you know?

3) How do you know?

You also need to establish and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 'sin' and 'Hell' are both more than mere concepts.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 01:04 AM
 
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
(04-09-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  1) Hell is not the medieval place of suffering the Catholics keep their sheep in line with. It is, however, a place of unending regret and severe discomfort, in a body that can handle more discomfort than we can now (and eternally does not require food, either).

My objection is that every Christian seems to have a private interpretation of the matter. Some say it is literal fire, some it's "severe discomfort," while some say it's a torture chamber. You say it's a place of "unending regret," while others say that hell is for those who never regret, and is closed from the inside, not outside.

So, this new body doesn't need food, but it can feel discomfort? Where is scriptural evidence that the damned are given new bodies? Paul talks only about the saved in 1 Cor. 15. Unless the new bodies of the damned are glorious and immortal, so how would they feel discomfort?

Also, what's the point of hell? If God doesn't want any of us to perish (John 3:16), why would he set a time limit for our salvation? Love is patient (1 Cor. 13:4), and God is timeless. Surely an omnibenevolent God would make sure to bring every human to him, no matter how much time it would take.

(04-09-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  2) The Bible is consistent on the issues. For example, you quoted Romans 2:7 about seeking eternal life without quoting other verses about other people finding god's wrath and indignation long after they've died.

You say that it's consistent, yet that I quoted it out of context.

Here's some more context - Ezek. 18:20, James 5:20 (thanatos), Rom. 6:23, 8:13; Matt. 7:13-14, 10:28; Gal. 6:8, Prov. 11:19, John 3:36, 6:48-51, 8:51; 2 Pet. 2:6...

Who found God's wrath after they died? I assume you're referring to the rich man from Luke 16. But this is not about hell - first, the word is Hades (Greek for Sheol) which is not a place of punishment. The man told Abraham to warn his brothers, which means that the story was taking place while there were still living people on earth. Yet, "hell" is a final destination after the Judgement Day.

Second, this parable appears only in Luke. Luke, or whoever wrote that gospel, as we know, wasn't an eyewitness, and we also know that he was mistaken about the census and the birth of Jesus. Considering that he was the only one to ever use the term Sheol as a place of torment, I would guess that it's an interpolation from someone who didn't understand the Hebrew philosophy - a Gentile maybe?

Do you have any other example?

(04-09-2013 02:38 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  3) Annihilationism is a works-based system. God's wrath is satisfied when the person is expiated for their own sin. That is "doing something" that is capable of satisfying a final payment for sin. The Bible offers two alternatives, have Jesus pay for one's sin or go into the endless loop.

"Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them."
John 3:36
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Philosoraptor's post
05-09-2013, 01:22 AM
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
(05-09-2013 01:04 AM)Philosoraptor Wrote:  Who found God's wrath after they died? I assume you're referring to the rich man from Luke 16. But this is not about hell - first, the word is Hades (Greek for Sheol) which is not a place of punishment. The man told Abraham to warn his brothers, which means that the story was taking place while there were still living people on earth. Yet, "hell" is a final destination after the Judgement Day.

While I like everything else you wrote, I do have to quibble with this one particular part.

It is my understanding that the Sheol of the Hebrew and the Hades of the Greeks were two separate (but similar) concepts. Now while they may have used the word for Hades in the Septuagint as a translation for Sheol, that does not make them one and the same. Still, the places were similar in that neither were seen as the lakes of fire and eternal punishment that we see later in Hell. But Sheol was a catch-all, whereas Hades was one possible destination (another being the Fields of Elysium). However in light of the Greek's and Roman's polytheistic syncretism with other polytheistic religions (the Greek god Hermes, was the Roman god Mercury, was the Egyptian god Thoth, etc), it's not hard to see how they would simply conflate the two as one.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2013, 02:17 AM
 
RE: Annihilationism and the NT
(05-09-2013 01:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  While I like everything else you wrote, I do have to quibble with this one particular part.

It is my understanding that the Sheol of the Hebrew and the Hades of the Greeks were two separate (but similar) concepts. Now while they may have used the word for Hades in the Septuagint as a translation for Sheol, that does not make them one and the same. Still, the places were similar in that neither were seen as the lakes of fire and eternal punishment that we see later in Hell. But Sheol was a catch-all, whereas Hades was one possible destination (another being the Fields of Elysium). However in light of the Greek's and Roman's polytheistic syncretism with other polytheistic religions (the Greek god Hermes, was the Roman god Mercury, was the Egyptian god Thoth, etc), it's not hard to see how they would simply conflate the two as one.

They were separate indeed. Now, even Christians tend to admit that Luke was written by a Gentile - so it probably addressed the Gentiles (on the other hand, Matthew was for the Jews, since it constantly refers to "prophecies" of the OT). If these Gentiles were influenced by the Hellenistic thought, "Luke" would have used Hades to describe the afterlife - before judgment. The idea of being dead until the resurrection was probably alien to Hellenistic Gentiles, so "Luke" filled up the story, to put it metaphorically. Still, the dead being dead was exactly what the OT was teaching (Eccl. 9:5). In fact, the idea of resurrection didn't appear until the book of Daniel, 2nd century BC. Where did it come from?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: