MERGED: Does Hell exist today?

[pablope]

Ok, pablope let’s go through this again. Luke 23:43 says “And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” The traditional interpretation of this v. is that Jesus would be in heaven with the thief ON THAT VERY DAY. Ok, Jump ahead to a little after the resurrection THREE DAYS LATER Jn. 20: 17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Both of these statements cannot be true. This is not my interpretation. This is what the bible says. Jesus says in Jn. 20:17 that He had not yet ascended to the Father three days after He supposedly said that He would be with the Thief in heaven. The only possible explaination is that the punctuation in Luke 23:43 is in the wrong place. If we move the punctuation, what do we get? Jn.20:17And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee Today, shalt thou be with me in paradise. Jesus is saying to this thief that you see me today in a degraded, humiliating, shameful manner. But one day, after I return to get you, you will be with me in paradise.

Richard…the Scripture cannot contradict itself, you know this already…otherwise, why would it be the Word of God inerrant? To you, they contradict because you are trying to explain it away with a punctuation. As I stated previously, if your belief or explanation is based on a punctuation, something is not right, you are standing on quicksand, no firm foundation.

Before going to your main question, why would Jesus body degrade, be in a shameful, humiliating manner? Would God the Father allow that to happen to his Son’s body?

Now, to your question, where did the Good Thief go? Again put it in context first. Paradise, to the Jews, meant Abraham’s Bosom, where the righteous were after their earthly death. As Jesus promised the good thief, Jesus took him to this Paradise, where Abraham, Moses, Elijah and the other Old Testament righteous and saints were. At the opening of Heaven, the good thief and the OT righteous, then went to Heaven. And who else is in Heaven? God the Father…and since God/Son/Holy Spirit are all one, and are omnipresent, so the good thief was with the God/Son/HS…even though Jesus was still here, to finish instructing the Apostles prior to his Ascension.

So, John 20:17 and Luke 23:43 do not contradict, and the comma is in the right place.

Here is something for you to reflect on (I forgot the link to this):

*Christ’s reply
Christ’s reply begins with the word “amen” (verily). Whenever this construction is chosen in the New Testament, it indicates that something emphatic is to follow.
For example, in Matthew 5:18, Christ said: “Amen I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” This construction enables Jesus to move to the diametrically opposite position. His audience had thought that he was doing away with the law. According to their thought, Christ’s new statement would be false. For that reason, he began with the assuring tone of “amen” (verily). Christ’s intent was to surprise his audience —- just as we might do today by saying something like, “You may find this difficult to believe, but it is true, nevertheless.”
Thus the word “amen” (verily) at the beginning of the first phrase (Verily I say unto you) announces that a surprising truth is about to be revealed, while the word “today,” at the start of the next phrase (today you will be…), is the unexpected, complementary emphasis —- the truth Christ had promised. In effect, Christ was saying, “It is not at all a case of my remembering you or that you need to wait for some future time! You will be with me, as of today.”
The reading “Verily I say unto you today” not only contains a redundancy (“I say” is in the present tense already —- making “today” redundant), it destroys the natural force of these words.
*

 

[benidict]

of course he had not ascended to his Father physically, but he sure could have been their spiritually, this could have been one of the things he did, after preaching to the spirits in prison,or before. so i dont see a problem with him seeing the thief the same day. we know he continued his ministry even while his body was dead, and lying in the tomb. we know that after our redemption was completed on the cross, he announced he was victorious to the those that had waited in paradise, awaiting the promise, and those who are still at this time in tartarus, awaiting their judgement at the great white throne. remember, he led captivity captive. Peace

 

[GEddie]

Before going to your main question, why would Jesus body degrade, be in a shameful, humiliating manner? Would God the Father allow that to happen to his Son’s body?

Death is intrinsically shameful and degrading to the human body; and state execution is intentionally humiliating on top of that. So yes, the Father did allow this to happen.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard…the Scripture cannot contradict itself, you know this already…otherwise, why would it be the Word of God inerrant? To you, they contradict because you are trying to explain it away with a punctuation.

Scripture is the inerrant word of God, but as you know neither Hebrew, the language of the old testament nor Greek, the language of the new testament had punctuation. This was added much later when the scriptures where translated into English and these translators, while doing an extremely good job, did make mistakes. Another example would be Acts19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

I’m sure you can see that the handkerchiefs or aprons were not sick, but that they were brought unto the sick. The comma was misplaced just like in Luke 23:43

As I stated previously, if your belief or explanation is based on a punctuation, something is not right, you are standing on quicksand, no firm foundation.

My belief has nothing to do with it. I am merely pointing out what to me is a glaringly obvious contradiction, that as you point out cannot happen in the word of God and the only possible explaination is that the uninspired comma punctuation, which BTW is not part of the word of God, was misplaced.

Before going to your main question, why would Jesus body degrade, be in a shameful, humiliating manner? Would God the Father allow that to happen to his Son’s body?

Pablope, are you saying it didn’t happen? Are you denying that Christ was crucified?

Now, to your question, where did the Good Thief go?

Pablope, I didn’t ask this question.

Again put it in context first. Paradise, to the Jews, meant Abraham’s Bosom, where the righteous were after their earthly death. As Jesus promised the good thief, Jesus took him to this Paradise, where Abraham, Moses, Elijah and the other Old Testament righteous and saints were. At the opening of Heaven, the good thief and the OT righteous, then went to Heaven. And who else is in Heaven? God the Father…and since God/Son/Holy Spirit are all one, and are omnipresent, so the good thief was with the God/Son/HS…even though Jesus was still here, to finish instructing the Apostles prior to his Ascension.

So, you are saying that Jesus was lying to Mary and that He really was with the thief in heaven on the day of His death. Wait a minute, Jesus died on Friday. It is almost certain that the thief lasted much longer, perhaps days longer. That again would mean that Jesus was lying, if the punctuation of Luke 23:43 is right. I’m sure no one wants to call Jesus a liar. So, why not just move the comma?

So, John 20:17 and Luke 23:43 do not contradict, and the comma is in the right place.

Well, first of all I don’t see nor do I aknowledge that your explaination above validates the placement of the comma in Luke 23:43 And as I have shown you three times now, if this comma is allowed to remain Luke 23:43 and Jn. 20:17 do contradict one another.

Here is something for you to reflect on (I forgot the link to this):

Christ’s reply
Christ’s reply begins with the word “amen” (verily). Whenever this construction is chosen in the New Testament, it indicates that something emphatic is to follow.
For example, in Matthew 5:18, Christ said: “Amen I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” This construction enables Jesus to move to the diametrically opposite position. His audience had thought that he was doing away with the law. According to their thought, Christ’s new statement would be false. For that reason, he began with the assuring tone of “amen” (verily). Christ’s intent was to surprise his audience —- just as we might do today by saying something like, “You may find this difficult to believe, but it is true, nevertheless.”
Thus the word “amen” (verily) at the beginning of the first phrase (Verily I say unto you) announces that a surprising truth is about to be revealed, while the word “today,” at the start of the next phrase (today you will be…), is the unexpected, complementary emphasis —- the truth Christ had promised. In effect, Christ was saying, “It is not at all a case of my remembering you or that you need to wait for some future time! You will be with me, as of today.”
This is merely stating your position again. A position that makes two different passages contradictory, which of coarse connot happen.

The reading “Verily I say unto you today” not only contains a redundancy (“I say” is in the present tense already —- making “today” redundant), it destroys the natural force of these words.

I could not disagree more with this statement. Jesus is saying to the thief that as you see me here now “today” seemingly without power and under extremely humiliating circumstances, in this condition, I promise you that one day you will be with me in paradise. This would be the dillusional rantings of a crucified madman, if it were not Jesus, but because it is Him they carry much power.

 

[pablope]

Scripture is the inerrant word of God, but as you know neither Hebrew, the language of the old testament nor Greek, the language of the new testament had punctuation. This was added much later when the scriptures where translated into English and these translators, while doing an extremely good job, did make mistakes. Another example would be Acts19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

I’m sure you can see that the handkerchiefs or aprons were not sick, but that they were brought unto the sick. The comma was misplaced just like in Luke 23:43

My belief has nothing to do with it. I am merely pointing out what to me is a glaringly obvious contradiction, that as you point out cannot happen in the word of God and the only possible explaination is that the uninspired comma punctuation, which BTW is not part of the word of God, was misplaced.

Pablope, are you saying it didn’t happen? Are you denying that Christ was crucified?

Pablope, I didn’t ask this question.

So, you are saying that Jesus was lying to Mary and that He really was with the thief in heaven on the day of His death. Wait a minute, Jesus died on Friday. It is almost certain that the thief lasted much longer, perhaps days longer. That again would mean that Jesus was lying, if the punctuation of Luke 23:43 is right. I’m sure no one wants to call Jesus a liar. So, why not just move the comma?

Well, first of all I don’t see nor do I aknowledge that your explaination above validates the placement of the comma in Luke 23:43 And as I have shown you three times now, if this comma is allowed to remain Luke 23:43 and Jn. 20:17 do contradict one another.

This is merely stating your position again. A position that makes two different passages contradictory, which of coarse connot happen.

I could not disagree more with this statement. Jesus is saying to the thief that as you see me here now “today” seemingly without power and under extremely humiliating circumstances, in this condition, I promise you that one day you will be with me in paradise. This would be the dillusional rantings of a crucified madman, if it were not Jesus, but because it is Him they carry much power.

Richard,

I do not know where you got this translation:
Acts19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

This is the one I got today: Acts19:12 (New KJV) 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.

My belief has nothing to do with it. This is puzzling. Why would it not matter. You believe in your owns translation, isn’t it. And you state other translations did not get it right.

Jesus is saying to this thief that you see me today in a degraded, humiliating, shameful manner.…Pablope, are you saying it didn’t happen? Are you denying that Christ was crucified?

I was trying to address this statement of yours…which I surmised you were referring to the post-crucifixion body…and I was also referring to post-crucifixion.

The only possible explaination is that the punctuation in Luke 23:43 is in the wrong place. Well, my response about the good thief was to answer this part of your statement…that Luke 23: 43 (not your version) is correct. That Jesus did take him to Paradise that very day.

Wait a minute, Jesus died on Friday. It is almost certain that the thief lasted much longer, perhaps days longer.

I think you need to review your crucifixion accounts. Being the Jewish Sabbath the next day, all those crucified that had not died would have their legs broken to make sure they expired that same day.

Well, first of all I don’t see nor do I aknowledge that your explaination above validates the placement of the comma in Luke 23:43 And as I have shown you three times now, if this comma is allowed to remain Luke 23:43 and Jn. 20:17 do contradict one another.

Could it be because you are trying to justify a belief based on Luke 23:43? As I stated, compare your version with the version that has been understood for the last 2000 years.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard,

I do not know where you got this translation:
Acts19:12 So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

This is the one I got today: Acts19:12 (New KJV) 12 so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.

I use the KJV

My belief has nothing to do with it. This is puzzling. Why would it not matter. You believe in your owns translation, isn’t it. And you state other translations did not get it right.

Ya pablope, you really need to go back and read all of the post. Then we can talk.

Jesus is saying to this thief that you see me today in a degraded, humiliating, shameful manner.…Pablope, are you saying it didn’t happen? Are you denying that Christ was crucified?

I was trying to address this statement of yours…which I surmised you were referring to the post-crucifixion body…and I was also referring to post-crucifixion.

I was refering to Luke 23:43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Which was said on the cross. Why would you think I was talking about “post-crucifixion”?

The only possible explaination is that the punctuation in Luke 23:43 is in the wrong place. Well, my response about the good thief was to answer this part of your statement…that Luke 23: 43 (not your version) is correct. That Jesus did take him to Paradise that very day.

Then what do you do with Jn. 20:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
Which was three days after the time that you say Jesus was in heaven with the thief?

Wait a minute, Jesus died on Friday. It is almost certain that the thief lasted much longer, perhaps days longer.

I think you need to review your crucifixion accounts. Being the Jewish Sabbath the next day, all those crucified that had not died would have their legs broken to make sure they expired that same day.

Ya, you’re right. Doesn’t change the original argument tho.

Well, first of all I don’t see nor do I aknowledge that your explaination above validates the placement of the comma in Luke 23:43 And as I have shown you three times now, if this comma is allowed to remain Luke 23:43 and Jn. 20:17 do contradict one another.

Could it be because you are trying to justify a belief based on Luke 23:43? As I stated, compare your version with the version that has been understood for the last 2000 years.

Well, again my belief has nothing to do with it. If the traditional view that Jesus was in heaven with the thief right after His death is true, then Jesus was lying in Jn.20:17. We know that that is not the case. SO THE PUNCTUATION IN LUKE 23:43 HAS TO BE IN THE WRONG PLACE. If you have an explaination for the apparent contradiction under the traditional explanation, let’s hear it.

 

[pablope]

I use the KJV

Well, again my belief has nothing to do with it. If the traditional view that Jesus was in heaven with the thief right after His death is true, then Jesus was lying in Jn.20:17. We know that that is not the case. SO THE PUNCTUATION IN LUKE 23:43 HAS TO BE IN THE WRONG PLACE. If you have an explaination for the apparent contradiction under the traditional explanation, let’s hear it.

Richard…

Here is KJV: Luke 23:43 (King James Version)

43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
So, I do not know where you are getting your KJV version.

I will paraphrase a quote…it is said, for the believer, there is not need for proof, but for the unbeliever, any proof is not enough…

I think it has been explained where the thief and Jesus where after the crucifixion, and if you believe in the Trinity…then even it it was not Jesus, there is God the Father with the thief in Paradise…for God/Son/Holy Spirit are one and are omnipresent…yet you keep closing your eyes to it. And you keep going around it. As I said, it takes courage to admit something is not right, I hope you find the courage to do so. And I will reissue what I asked of you…find evidence that the comma is where you state it to be, earlier than the 1800s, even in private, if you do not want to share it.

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard…

Here is KJV: Luke 23:43 (King James Version)

43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.
So, I do not know where you are getting your KJV version.

I will paraphrase a quote…it is said, for the believer, there is not need for proof, but for the unbeliever, any proof is not enough…

I think it has been explained where the thief and Jesus where after the crucifixion, and if you believe in the Trinity…then even it it was not Jesus, there is God the Father with the thief in Paradise…for God/Son/Holy Spirit are one and are omnipresent…yet you keep closing your eyes to it. And you keep going around it. As I said, it takes courage to admit something is not right, I hope you find the courage to do so. And I will reissue what I asked of you…find evidence that the comma is where you state it to be, earlier than the 1800s, even in private, if you do not want to share it.

Here is the evidence

If the traditional view that Jesus was in heaven with the thief right after His death is true, then Jesus was lying in Jn.20:17. We know that that is not the case. SO THE PUNCTUATION IN LUKE 23:43 HAS TO BE IN THE WRONG PLACE. If you have an explaination for the apparent contradiction under the traditional explanation, let’s hear it.

I have posted this several times now, this is the last time.

 

[pablope]

Here is the evidence

If the traditional view that Jesus was in heaven with the thief right after His death is true, then Jesus was lying in Jn.20:17. We know that that is not the case. SO THE PUNCTUATION IN LUKE 23:43 HAS TO BE IN THE WRONG PLACE. If you have an explaination for the apparent contradiction under the traditional explanation, let’s hear it.

I have posted this several times now, this is the last time.

Here is the answer:

*I think it has been explained where the thief and Jesus where after the crucifixion, and if you believe in the Trinity…then even it it was not Jesus, there is God the Father with the thief in Paradise…for God/Son/Holy Spirit are one and are omnipresent
*

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Here is the answer:

*I think it has been explained where the thief and Jesus where after the crucifixion, and if you believe in the Trinity…then even it it was not Jesus, there is God the Father with the thief in Paradise…for God/Son/Holy Spirit are one and are omnipresent
*

Luke 23:43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Look what this says pablope. There is no doubt that Jesus is saying that He, not the Father, not the Spirit will be with the thief in Paradise. The question is when and if we believe Jn.20:17 that absolutely could not have been on the day of His death.

 

[pablope]

Luke 23:43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Look what this says pablope. There is no doubt that Jesus is saying that He, not the Father, not the Spirit will be with the thief in Paradise. The question is when and if we believe Jn.20:17 that absolutely could not have been on the day of His death.

Richard…it does not matter who was with the thief…for as per the dogma of the Holy Trinity…they are all one…the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.

So Jesus did fulfill his promise…for He is in the Father and the Father in the Son. So there is not contradiction with John 20: 17…the contradiction exists because you are trying to (name removed by moderator)ut your private interpretation. And for you, the contradiction only will dissolve if a comma is moved…which, may i reiterate…is like standing on quicksand.

:

 

[benidict]

:clapping: well said pablope. i have to wonder if they believe that Jesus was in a state of soul sleep, during the 3 days in the tomb. that would bring up some very interesting insights from the perspective of some of the Jewish sages. i dont know if the Adventist believe this or not. it would be interesting to find out. Peace

 

[Richard_Kastner]

Richard…it does not matter who was with the thief…for as per the dogma of the Holy Trinity…they are all one…the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.

So Jesus did fulfill his promise…for He is in the Father and the Father in the Son. So there is not contradiction with John 20: 17…the contradiction exists because you are trying to (name removed by moderator)ut your private interpretation. And for you, the contradiction only will dissolve if a comma is moved…which, may i reiterate…is like standing on quicksand.

Take a look at this verse pablope.

Jn.20:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Now this says that Jesus said that He had not ascended to His Father, but you seem to be saying that Jesus was mistaken or delusional or outright lying and He was in heaven with His father and the thief. Now which one do you think we should believe pablope, you or Jesus?

 

[benidict]

nope. he could not have ascended bodily to the heavens. but… just as he went to the spirits in prison, he also could have seen the thief in paradise. really dont see how this contradicts what Jesus said to Mary.

 

[pablope]

Take a look at this verse pablope.

Jn.20:17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Now this says that Jesus said that He had not ascended to His Father, but you seem to be saying that Jesus was mistaken or delusional or outright lying and He was in heaven with His father and the thief. Now which one do you think we should believe pablope, you or Jesus?

Richard…you must be speaking of a different Jesus.

Jesus had two natures…His divine nature and His human nature… He became truly man while remaining truly God…Jesus Christ is true God and true man, He is not part God and part man.

At the crucifixion, what remained in the tomb for three days was his human nature…but his divine nature did not die…it remained alive…it was with the Father, with Elijah and Moses and the Good Thief. For if his divine nature had died…then He would not be God, for God is Eternal.

He could have risen that very evening, or the very next day, but He did not. Why? It was to fulfill what was prophesied…and I think it was to prove to unbelievers, that He was really dead, and nobody could say that he pretended to be dead.

So, at His resurrection, the witnesses see his human body…as proof that he was indeed the Son of God, as he claimed, and to fulfill what was prophesied. And there was another purpose for doing this. Jesus did this to establish contact with his Apostles, with His mother, with witnesses. He invited them to touch him, He ate with them, stayed with them till his ascension so that they would recognize that he is not a ghost and above all to verify that the risen body in which he appears to them is the same body that had been tortured and crucified, for it still bears the traces of his Passion. Remember Thomas actually touching His wounds? And after seeing Jesus is alive…this proved to His Apostles the truth of what he said and it was to awaken their faith, so that when they did go out to spread Jesus’s word…there was no doubt in them.

Again, Richard…there is no conflict. Jesus spoke the truth then and does so today. You just have to truly open your eyes and heart.

 

[pablope]

:clapping: well said pablope. i have to wonder if they believe that Jesus was in a state of soul sleep, during the 3 days in the tomb. that would bring up some very interesting insights from the perspective of some of the Jewish sages. i dont know if the Adventist believe this or not. it would be interesting to find out. Peace

Hi, Benidict…in all humility…I would credit that to the Magisterium, together with the Bible and the Sacred Tradition, all three acting together…for teaching me that truth…

Blessings…

 

[benidict]

Hi, Benidict…in all humility…I would credit that to the Magisterium, together with the Bible and the Sacred Tradition, all three acting together…for teaching me that truth…

Blessings…

100 percent agreement with that my friend! it is good to have a governing body, that Christ himself set up, so we could never be led astray. peace

 

[BibleTruth]

Does hell exist today?

Not according to the Bible. Reference Matthew 13:38-43, amongst many other passages.

 

[campeador]

Not according to the Bible. Reference Matthew 13:38-43, amongst many other passages.

Yes, according to the Bible. Reference Mark 9:48, amongst many other passages.

 

[BibleTruth]

Yes, according to the Bible. Reference Mark 9:48, amongst many other passages.

Please explain, because the Bible does not contradict itself.

In Matthew 13, Jesus is clear that the wicked will be destroyed during the harvest at the “end of the world”, and not before that time. Revelation 20 echoes this same understanding by stating that the second death is the lake of fire after the 1,000 years (following Christ’s return) of the righteous being in heaven . Also, 2 Peter 2:9 say that God is reserving the unjust “unto the day of judgment to be punished”.

Why would the Bible state that hell-fire is at the end of the world if it’s something that’s going on now? Why would God allow the unjust to burn now and be “punished” later, if in fact hell-fire is the ultimate punishment (i.e. the second death)?

Thanks.