Evidence for God from Science

Hi again Turgonian,

You explained...

Please don't assume that everyone who talks about eternal punishment means fire and brimstone.

OK.

But I wonder what makes the difference. Why do some who believe in conscious punishment take the fire literally while others don't?

Why don't you feel the fire is real? What about those "worms that do not die"? What's your thought on those?

Don

What makes the DIFFERENCE? I'd say an eternity of shame and ennui would still be a whole lot better than an eternity of writhing in fire. Unclean pagans would experience a lot less of shame than unsaved Jews, and fair degrees of punishment would be possible. Also, IF a number of infants would be sent to hell (children sacrificed to the idol of Moloch or the idol of Abortion, for instance) (which is not biblically clear), they would hardly be able to feel shame, especially those children whose minds would still be (near-)unformed.

Link as to why I think so: A Refocus on the Atonement and Eternal Punishment.

I would say the 'worms' are Eastern hyperbole, like 'fire', 'darkness', 'God's winepress'. The emphasis, according to Glenn Miller, is 'on exclusion from the 'good stuff' [...] NOT some pain from the immortal worms or refuse fires. This would argue that Jesus' use of this vivid image is consistent with the 'thrown outside' images He generally used to portray the final judgment.'

And Stein, whom Miller quotes, writes in Difficult Sayings in the Gospel: 'To have the worm present in the description of the judgment of the unrighteous is understandable; to have unquenchable fire present is likewise understandable; but to have both present together is not, for the fire would kill the worm. To claim that Isaiah conceived of a new kind of worm, an asbestos worm as it were, is to miss the point. The worm and the unquenchable fire are two well-known metaphorical portraits of judgment. Placing them side by side simply reinforces Isaiah's proclamation of the certainty of the judgment.'

Hi Turgonian,

You explained...

Don, a lot of orthodox Christians believe in everlasting punishment, but not in a literal fire. So the rich man might just have been thirsty. Others think the parable should just be taken not as a literal description of hell, but a story illustrating status-reversal to come in the afterlife.

Please don't assume that everyone who talks about eternal punishment means fire and brimstone.

I've got to stop assuming so much.

Thanks for explaining that.

Don

You're welcome.

Turgonian,

You explained...

"Don't assume that everyone who talks about eternal punishment means fire and brimstone."

From what you say here, does that mean that you are one of those orthodox Christians who doesn't think the punishment will be with literal fire and brimstone?

Don

P.S. Notice that I'm not assuming that you are one of those ones.

Turgonian,

The above article your referred to (A Refocus on the Atonement and Eternal Punishment) asks...

"Is it really fair for one who does not accept Jesus to suffer in Hell forever?"
It answers...

In conclusion on this tangent: The data would indicate that the primary focus of eternal punishment is the denial of the honor accorded to those who reject God's offer of salvation, and who bear themselves the shame and disgrace Jesus took in their stead. Therefore there is no inequality in the "suffering" -- these persons have denied God His ascribed honor; they are denied in turn the honor that is given to human beings, who are created with the intent that they live forever in God's service, reigning with Christ and serving him. They choose rather the shame and disgrace of serving their own interests; they are also shamed in accordance with their deeds (i.e., Hitler obviously has more to be "ashamed of" than, say, a robber baron). By denying their ascribed place in the collective identity of humanity, they are placed outside the boundaries, exactly as they desire to be and to the extent that their deeds demanded.

Sure would be a lot simpler to exlain if the everlasting punishment was simply the withholding of God's gift of everlasting life forever, and that everyone being punished received that exact same punishment - everlasting death.

Don

But that could create all kinds of misunderstandings. Some people would take 'death' as being 'put out of existence'...

Turgonian,

What is it that will be punished forever? The soul? The body? Or what?

Don

Body and spirit. I believe the living combination of those two is called the nephesh (soul) in the OT.

Turgonian wrote:Body and spirit. I believe the living combination of those two is called the nephesh (soul) in the OT.

That's interesting. My understanding of the nephesh has always been that it is the "life" of a person and that it is regarded in the Old Testament to be present in the blood. For that reason, the Jews were instructed by God not to eat the blood - the life (nephesh) - of an animal, and that is was the blood - the life (nephesh) - that was offered in sacrifice. These days it is the reason that Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, claiming that it messes with the nephesh by introducing the blood of someone else into one's body.

But looking around places, courtesy of Professor Google, I do see other meanings of the word which matches that which Turgy provides.

Turgonian & Judah,

As to what undergoes the everlasting punishment, Turgonian said...

Body and spirit.

You explained...

I believe the living combination of those two is called the nephesh (soul) in the OT

Judah then explained his understanding of the Hebrew word nephesh...

My understanding of the nephesh ...is the "life" of a person.

Consistent with this is the fact that the King James Bible translates nephesh as life numerous times. - e.g. Genesis 9:4

My own understanding of nephesh is close to both of the above explanations...

1) It refers to a person (body plus personality) or lower animal (body plus personality). The same inanimate force of life (spirit Hebrew “ruahh,” Oriental “chi”) animates both humans and animals. - Ecc. 3:19 (I have wondered if perhaps this same force of life animates all living things.)

I learned that the first time nephesh is used in the Bible it refers to fish. The next time it refers to birds. The third time it refers to all the other lower animals. And then the forth time it is used it refers to humans. - Genesis 1:20, 21,24; 2:7

Although the word "nephesh" occurs in each of the above verses, most Bible translations make it difficult to notice this because they only translate nephesh into "soul" in the above verse where it refers to humans in Genesis 2:7.

This would explain why when the Bible says that the soul dies it is referring to the person or animal that dies. There are lots of dead souls mentioned in the Bible. But the King James Bible (for example) makes it difficult to notice this because it only shows dead bodies.

2) The second meaning of nephesh is the one mentioned by Judah. It refers to the life humans and lower animals have as living, breathing souls. [/b] - Genesis 9:4

When I come across the word “soul” in the Bible and the word “person” (or “animal”) doesn't fit, I find that the word “life” does.

I found the "Dictionary of the Bible" by John L. McKenzie to be very helpful in explaining the Bible's use of the Hebrew "nephesh" (soul),"ruahh" (spirit) and the Greek "psyche" (soul) and "pneuma" (spirit). - http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=32

Among other things, McKenzie explains that "In the Old Testament, soul never means the 'immortal soul' of Greek thought... In Genesis 2:7, by receiving God's breath (Hebrew: "neshama") in his nostrils, the human (Adam) comes alive - becomes a living self or person.

He explains that expressions like, "my soul" means "I" or "me," "your soul" means "you," etc.

He concluded, "In summary, while the Hebrew could distinguish soul from body as material basis of life, there was no understanding of two separate, independent entities called body and soul - the one flesh alone, the other immortal spirit. Rather, there was one self.

About the New Testament he says...

In spite of the influences from Greek thought, the New Testament is heavily dependent on the Old Testament understanding of self or person... The psyche in the New Testament is still the totality of self as a living and conscious subject, and it is the totality of the self which is saved for eternal life.
He then makes this point...

When the Greek concept of psyche as a distinct spiritual principle is read into the term soul, the concept of salvation and eternal life may become Platonic rather than biblical.

In other words, if we see "soul" and think in terms of a distinct spiritual principle that survives the death of the body, McKenzie reasons that we are being influence by Plato rather than the Bible and therefore would be basing our hope of eternal life on something the Greek philosopher Plato thought up rather than on what the Bible holds out as our only hope of eternal life - the resurrection of the soul. - 1 Corinthians 15

Don
Additional Note: If it is the "nephesh" (person or soul) that dies, then it seems reasonable to me that it is the nephesh (person or soul) that is resurrected.