Is hell the natural fate of man?

Pro-Zak · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:14 pm

"I have lost none that you gave me, save for the son of perdition." "It would have been better had he not been born."

Just a few passages that do more than strongly suggest that Judas is damned.

Light of the East · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:07 pm

Pro-Zak wrote:

"I have lost none that you gave me, save for the son of perdition." "It would have been better had he not been born."

Just a few passages that do more than strongly suggest that Judas is damned.

Actually, according to something I read, the Greek is very poorly translated here (which appears to be a common problem going from West to East)

Quote:

Consider how the Greek Interlinear presents it:

o <3588> {THE} men <3303> {INDEED} uiov <5207> tou <3588> {SON} anyrwpou <444> {OF MAN} upagei <5217> (5719) {GOES,} kaywv <2531> {AS} gegraptai <1125> (5769) {IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN} peri <4012> {CONCERNING} autou <846> {HIM,} [Christ] ouai <3759> de <1161> tw <3588> {BUT WOE} anyrwpw <444> ekeinw <1565> {TO THAT MAN} [Judas] di <1223> {BY} ou <3739> {WHOM} o <3588> {THE} uiov <5207> tou <3588> {SON} anyrwpou <444> {OF MAN} paradidotai <3860> (5743) {IS DELIVERED UP;} kalon <2570> {GOOD} hn <2258> (5713) {WERE IT} autw <846> {FOR HIM} [Christ] ei <1487> ouk <3756> {IF} egennhyh <1080> (5681) o <3588> {HAD NOT BEEN BORN} anyrwpov <444> ekeinov <1565> {THAT MAN.} [Judas] (Mt. 26:24).

German Bible Scholar and translator, A.E. Knoch wrote:

Dr. Leander van Ess, in his German version, renders it “for him were it better, such a human were never born.” In the context immediately preceding, the identity of those referred to is fixed beyond question. It may be set forth as follows: Him = The Son of Mankind; That man = Judas.

The (Son of Mankind) is indeed going away, according as it is written concerning (Him). Yet woe to “that man” through whom the (Son of Mankind) is being betrayed! Ideal were it for (Him) if “that man” were not born!

If it had read “Ideal were it for “that man” if “he” had not been born (as usually mistranslated) then both would refer to Judas. But no unprejudiced reader of the English or the Greek can possibly refer the Him to anyone but our Lord, Who is so termed in the preceding sentence. But if all the translations ever made rendered the passage incorrectly, that would not prove anything except human fallibility. The original speaks of the Son of Mankind as “Him” and of Judas as “that man,” and makes it clear that it were ideal for Him if that man were not born.

See the full text here:

https://www.hopebeyondhell.net/faq-14-b ... n-mt-2624/

This is the same problem we run into over and over again when people are not familiar with Greek syntax, the meaning of Greek words, etc. Let me give another example:

Mar 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

This verse is commonly referred to, along with the corollary verse, Matthew 18:6, to declare that anyone who offends, hurts, kills, etc a child is going to suffer a particularly egregious punishment. But is that what this verse is saying.

NOT
AT
ALL.

The Greek word used here is μικρός mikros. Does that word mean children? Absolutely not. We know this because a few verses prior, Jesus takes a little child in to his arms. The word for little child is
παιδίον paidion, and it is used to denote an infant child. So what does micros mean?

Do you see the beginnings of the word "microscopic" there? Yes, it is an adjective used to describe something that is small or diminuative. Such as the disciples of the Lord, who were small in the eyes of the important Pharisees, who were diminuative in their infant faith. And the warning is to those who would offend (that is hurt, kill, martyr) those with the microscopic faith in Him, for in AD 70, women would resort to eating their own children during the Seige and Destruction of Jerusalem. Over a million Jews were slaughtered. Truly, it would have been better for them to have been drowned in the sea than to go through the horrors of the destruction they witnessed.

It's more of the same with the word "aionios."

And the Douay-Rheims is no better, mistranslating the word metanoia to mean "do penance" when that word means nothing of the sort.

No, sorry, your argument has some holes in it.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:16 pm

Boy, those are some tendentious readings of the Greek, not to say contrived.

Light of the East · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:20 pm

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Boy, those are some tendentious readings of the Greek, not to say contrived.

Which ones, the ones about Judas or the ones that I discovered some years ago regarding the mistranslation between micros and padion.

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:31 pm

Both. Can you show me any ancient commentator on Scripture who reads them the way you do?

With respect to "micros" and "padion," the Bible often uses parallel words rather than repeating the same one. As a matter of fact, we do it in common speech all the time.

Closet Catholic · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:44 pm

Light of the East wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

Boy, those are some tendentious readings of the Greek, not to say contrived.

Which ones, the ones about Judas or the ones that I discovered some years ago regarding the mistranslation between micros and padion.

What mistranslation?

According to Walter Bauer (an Frederick William Danker),* μικρός has three main meanings:

pertaining to a relatively limited size, measure, or quantity, small, short (which includes both stature and age)
pertaining to being of little import, unimportant, insignificant
the state of being small, smallness

Bauer attributes the first meaning to Matthew 18:6 (i.e. child) and the second one to Mark 9:42 (i.e. persons lacking in importance, influence, power, and so on). The question is: who reads Mark 9:42 to refer to children (exclusively)? You seem to indicate that this is a problem, but I have never seen anyone interpret the verse in that way. Which translations are you referring to? I cannot think of a single translation that translates this as 'child' or 'children.'

*Source: Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed., revised and edited by Frederick William Danker. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001)

Peregrinator · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:34 pm

How would it be "ideal" for Our Lord if Judas had never been born?

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 4:43 pm

Good point, especially since Jesus came to offer His life.

Jack3 · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 6:37 pm

Light of the East wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Light of the East wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

It is possible that they haven't. My only point here is that when you say that universalism is Orthodox, what you mean is that it is compatible with Orthodoxy.

I went and did some Googling and reading after our last conversation. A number of priests in Orthodoxy appear to say that it is acceptable to have the hope that all shall be saved, but it is not acceptable to teach it in a dogmatic fashion.

I had an interesting discussion with one Orthodox priest online who told me "we do believe in Apokatastasis." but who denies that all will be redeemed. When I questioned him on this, it appears that what Orthodoxy teaches is that Christ has given salvation to all and all will be in the presence of God, however, the evil will find that experience to be sheer torment while those who have sought and loved Christ here on earth will find it bliss - and that condition is irreversible forever. This was also taught in a paper by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros called THE RIVER OF FIRE and I have seen similar descriptions on Orthodox blog posts and forums.

I think it is perfectly in line with God's immense love save and bring all back to Him. I also can see that the wicked, i.e., those consumed by and subservient to their passions, would experience the love of God as torment, being that they do not want anything to do with Him but only their disordered and sinful passions.

The question then is still this after all is said and done.....can the soul repent after death? Is change possible. Those in the Universalist camp say yes. I honestly don't know. Sometimes I look at the way that the wicked absolutely run after evil with no desire to change, to listen to rebuke, to abhor their sins, and I am inclined to agree with you, Father...they can't change, they won't change, they are not interested in change....now or ever.

But then I wonder if there is something that God has up His sleeve, so to speak, that I know nothing about. I think the reason that I defend Apokatastasis so ardently is that I sincerely wish it to be true. I want the wicked punished for what they did - but not forever. That is a horrible thing to think about.

Whose fault is it that the wicked are wicked? Were they created wicked? If not, whose fault is it that they were exposed to whatever made them wicked?

Denise, the thing I struggle with is not that any of us find ourselves in a world which is wicked. It is that even after been pleaded with, rebuked, taught, etc., we still choose wickedness and run to it. This is the one thing that I see that keeps me from being really all sold out on Apokatastasis. I don't have any proof that souls can repent after death and those who believe in eternal torment don't have any proof that souls can't

We grope in darkness.

And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil

Denise Dee · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 7:16 pm

Closet Catholic wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Light of the East wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

It is possible that they haven't. My only point here is that when you say that universalism is Orthodox, what you mean is that it is compatible with Orthodoxy.

I went and did some Googling and reading after our last conversation. A number of priests in Orthodoxy appear to say that it is acceptable to have the hope that all shall be saved, but it is not acceptable to teach it in a dogmatic fashion.

I had an interesting discussion with one Orthodox priest online who told me "we do believe in Apokatastasis." but who denies that all will be redeemed. When I questioned him on this, it appears that what Orthodoxy teaches is that Christ has given salvation to all and all will be in the presence of God, however, the evil will find that experience to be sheer torment while those who have sought and loved Christ here on earth will find it bliss - and that condition is irreversible forever. This was also taught in a paper by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros called THE RIVER OF FIRE and I have seen similar descriptions on Orthodox blog posts and forums.

I think it is perfectly in line with God's immense love save and bring all back to Him. I also can see that the wicked, i.e., those consumed by and subservient to their passions, would experience the love of God as torment, being that they do not want anything to do with Him but only their disordered and sinful passions.

The question then is still this after all is said and done.....can the soul repent after death? Is change possible. Those in the Universalist camp say yes. I honestly don't know. Sometimes I look at the way that the wicked absolutely run after evil with no desire to change, to listen to rebuke, to abhor their sins, and I am inclined to agree with you, Father...they can't change, they won't change, they are not interested in change....now or ever.

But then I wonder if there is something that God has up His sleeve, so to speak, that I know nothing about. I think the reason that I defend Apokatastasis so ardently is that I sincerely wish it to be true. I want the wicked punished for what they did - but not forever. That is a horrible thing to think about.

Whose fault is it that the wicked are wicked? Were they created wicked? If not, whose fault is it that they were exposed to whatever made them wicked?

Let's say that a wicked person isn't really wicked because someone exposed him to what 'made him wicked.' What, then, of the person who exposed him to what 'made him wicked'? Or is he 'innocent,' too?

I didn't suggest that 'wicked' people aren't 'wicked, I didn't say they are 'innocent'. But I asked are they created wicked? If not, then whose fault is that they somehow become wicked? If a person is not born wicked, then something happens TO them to make them become wicked, and whose fault is that?

Denise Dee · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:35 pm

Pro-Zak wrote:

"I have lost none that you gave me, save for the son of perdition." "It would have been better had he not been born."

Just a few passages that do more than strongly suggest that Judas is damned.

(That’s two, not “a few”!)

Jesus also said:

Matthew 19:24

“it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the reign of God.”

and

Luke 14:26

”If any one doth come unto me, and doth not hate his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, and yet even his own life, he is not able to be my disciple;”

and

Matthew 18:8-9

“And if thy hand or thy foot doth cause thee to stumble, cut them off and cast from thee; it is good for thee to enter into the life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast to the fire the age-during.

And if thine eye doth cause thee to stumble, pluck it out and cast from thee; it is good for thee one-eyed to enter into the life, rather than having two eyes to be cast to the gehenna of the fire.”

Closet Catholic · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:04 pm

Denise Dee wrote:

Closet Catholic wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Light of the East wrote:

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

It is possible that they haven't. My only point here is that when you say that universalism is Orthodox, what you mean is that it is compatible with Orthodoxy.

I went and did some Googling and reading after our last conversation. A number of priests in Orthodoxy appear to say that it is acceptable to have the hope that all shall be saved, but it is not acceptable to teach it in a dogmatic fashion.

I had an interesting discussion with one Orthodox priest online who told me "we do believe in Apokatastasis." but who denies that all will be redeemed. When I questioned him on this, it appears that what Orthodoxy teaches is that Christ has given salvation to all and all will be in the presence of God, however, the evil will find that experience to be sheer torment while those who have sought and loved Christ here on earth will find it bliss - and that condition is irreversible forever. This was also taught in a paper by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros called THE RIVER OF FIRE and I have seen similar descriptions on Orthodox blog posts and forums.

I think it is perfectly in line with God's immense love save and bring all back to Him. I also can see that the wicked, i.e., those consumed by and subservient to their passions, would experience the love of God as torment, being that they do not want anything to do with Him but only their disordered and sinful passions.

The question then is still this after all is said and done.....can the soul repent after death? Is change possible. Those in the Universalist camp say yes. I honestly don't know. Sometimes I look at the way that the wicked absolutely run after evil with no desire to change, to listen to rebuke, to abhor their sins, and I am inclined to agree with you, Father...they can't change, they won't change, they are not interested in change....now or ever.

But then I wonder if there is something that God has up His sleeve, so to speak, that I know nothing about. I think the reason that I defend Apokatastasis so ardently is that I sincerely wish it to be true. I want the wicked punished for what they did - but not forever. That is a horrible thing to think about.

Whose fault is it that the wicked are wicked? Were they created wicked? If not, whose fault is it that they were exposed to whatever made them wicked?

Let's say that a wicked person isn't really wicked because someone exposed him to what 'made him wicked.' What, then, of the person who exposed him to what 'made him wicked'? Or is he 'innocent,' too?

I didn't suggest that 'wicked' people aren't 'wicked, I didn't say they are 'innocent'. But I asked are they created wicked? If not, then whose fault is that they somehow become wicked? If a person is not born wicked, then something happens TO them to make them become wicked, and whose fault is that?

Their own.

Amon98 · **Posted:** Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:13 pm

Some people are brought up in broken homes and are surrounded by people who do bad things.

Some people are driven by various things into addictive patterns.

Others are driven to criminal behavior for various reasons.

These are not excuses but human realities where some people are taught to behave badly from a young age or are desperate for some reason. Addiction can lead to bad and immoral behavior.

In the end, yes, we will all have to give an account for what we've done. But hope. Hope in God will help us through prayer.

Pro-Zak · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:44 am

Greek, Latin, Hebrew, it's all Chinese to me...

Pro-Zak · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2020 1:51 am

Has anyone noticed a growing trend among Evangelicals, the idea of anihiationism?

Obi-Wan Kenobi · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:13 am

That's mentioned in the book I told Ed about.

Gandalf the Grey · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:23 am

Obi-Wan Kenobi wrote:

That's mentioned in the book I told Ed about.

There seems to me still a lot of Platonic spiritualism or even semi-gnostocism roaming around in evangelicalism regarding the afterlife.

What I wonder is that if it is really true regarding the imperishableness of the resurrected body after the general resurrection, how can those bodies be annihilated?

Pro-Zak · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:43 am

What is more troubling is a pastor I've known since the early 90's, attended some of the churches he led in the past, now embraces annihilation. He promotes it publicly as "Good news about Hell", based on some loose notion of "conditional immortality."

Pro-Zak · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2020 9:48 am

I think the "Counsel of Trent" addresses this adequately...

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/onlin ... nd-eternal

Denise Dee · **Posted:** Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:33 pm

Closet Catholic wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Closet Catholic wrote:

Denise Dee wrote:

Light of the East wrote:

I went and did some Googling and reading after our last conversation. A number of priests in Orthodoxy appear to say that it is acceptable to have the hope that all shall be saved, but it is not acceptable to teach it in a dogmatic fashion.

I had an interesting discussion with one Orthodox priest online who told me "we do believe in Apokatastasis." but who denies that all will be redeemed. When I questioned him on this, it appears that what Orthodoxy teaches is that Christ has given salvation to all and all will be in the presence of God, however, the evil will find that experience to be sheer torment while those who have sought and loved Christ here on earth will find it bliss - and that condition is irreversible forever. This was also taught in a paper by Dr. Alexander Kalomiros called THE RIVER OF FIRE and I have seen similar descriptions on Orthodox blog posts and forums.

I think it is perfectly in line with God's immense love save and bring all back to Him. I also can see that the wicked, i.e., those consumed by and subservient to their passions, would experience the love of God as torment, being that they do not want anything to do with Him but only their disordered and sinful passions.

The question then is still this after all is said and done.....can the soul repent after death? Is change possible. Those in the Universalist camp say yes. I honestly don't know. Sometimes I look at the way that the wicked absolutely run after evil with no desire to change, to listen to rebuke, to abhor their sins, and I am inclined to agree with you, Father...they can't change, they won't change, they are not interested in change....now or ever.

But then I wonder if there is something that God has up His sleeve, so to speak, that I know nothing about. I think the reason that I defend Apokatastasis so ardently is that I sincerely wish it to be true. I want the wicked punished for what they did - but not forever. That is a horrible thing to think about.

Whose fault is it that the wicked are wicked? Were they created wicked? If not, whose fault is it that they were exposed to whatever made them wicked?

Let's say that a wicked person isn't really wicked because someone exposed him to what 'made him wicked.' What, then, of the person who exposed him to what 'made him wicked'? Or is he 'innocent,' too?

I didn't suggest that 'wicked' people aren't 'wicked, I didn't say they are 'innocent'. But I asked are they created wicked? If not, then whose fault is that they somehow become wicked? If a person is not born wicked, then something happens TO them to make them become wicked, and whose fault is that?

Their own.

Bad or mad?

Whose fault is it if a person is made mentally ill by their environment, by physical, mental and sexual abuse, physical and emotional deprivation, cruelty, hatred, trauma, and they consequently behave inappropriately and unwisely, become addicted to alcohol or drugs or pornography or worse, because they've been made mentally ill by what was done TO them?

Is hell the natural fate of man?

Who is online