Why JW's don't believe in the Hell

[redle]

Gehenna (Hades in Greek) is the Hebrew word for what we know as “hell”. Sheol was the abode of dead who awaited Christ’s coming. Those in Sheol were not condemned to eternal punishment. They simply could not enter heaven because the gates of heaven had not yet been opened by Christ. Christ visited them there after his death and before the resurrection and freed them to enter heaven. Those that were in Gehenna, however, remain there for eternity.

There is a lot material on this subject. We must use the meaning that was understood by those who wrote it. That would be the Hebrew meaning.

Peter’s quoting of a Psalm shows us that it is Hades which is the greek word for Sheol - these two terms mean the same thing:
Psa 16:10 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [sheol]; nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption.
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [hades]: nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.

Gehenna is altogether different, coming from the root meaning ‘valley of Hinnom’.
While hades/sheol can give up those in there, I agree with you that this is not the case with Gehenna.
And since hades and gehenna are different, these two verses make sense without distorting their original meanings:

Rev 20:13 “And the sea gave up the dead that were in it: and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. And they were judged, every one according to their works.”
This describes those dead coming out of gravedom to be judged, swiftly followed by:

Rev 20:14 “And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire.”
Death and Gravedom itself are destroyed forever in Gehenna.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thank you for such a detailed reply - I appreciate you taking the time to compose and post it.

I have two questions on what you have written.

29 Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day.
30 Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.
31 Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.

I would be most suprised if your comment was the official RC teaching, as this is quite apparently speaking about Christ, the fruit of David’s loins.
We know that for a certainty because it says “neither did his flesh see corruption” which is true of Christ, but not of David.

Quite right, I misread. I will concede that Christ came out of Hell back unto Earth, but, let’s not forgot that he’s God, so he can basically do whatever he wants. His coming and going does not indicate that a normal human could, because a normal human is not divine. Christ was 100% human and 100% divine, so the limitations of humanity mean little to him. (well, they mean a lot to him, because he loves us, but he is above us, and does not share our same limitations.)

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it: and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. And they were judged, every one according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death.

In the Greek language it just uses the word “hades”.
This is the same hades as used throughout the rest of the scriptures. There are not two different hades, although I see why this construct would be needed to make sense of the verse in the way you describe.

Again, I’m genuinely grateful for your insight - I feel I’m learning much in being here.

I was not implying that there are two different Hells, I am saying that “hell,” with the lower case as it is used in verse 14, is referencing the inhabitants of Hell (upper case). Basically its saying that all the inhabitants of Hell, human and demon alike, will be cast into the pool of fire after the second coming. The authors of the Bible paid close attention to their capitalization and what it signified. This is evident in the appropriate uses of “Him” rather than “him” when referring to God and Christ; there are other instances as well, but this is the most prominent throughout the Bible. They would not have mistakenly put “hell” when they meant “Hell.”

There are other people who know more about this than me here, and I hope that they will post, because I am having trouble giving words to my knowledge XD

Thank you for the good discussion though. I love good debate because it forces me to learn more about my faith!

 

[redle]

Thank you for the good discussion though. I love good debate because it forces me to learn more about my faith!

Thank you for being civil with me too.
I feel like an outsider here in amongst many very knowledgable people. Even so I have thus far been treated kindly, which I appreciate.

I’m learning much!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Thank you for being civil with me too.
I feel like an outsider here in amongst many very knowledgable people. Even so I have thus far been treated kindly, which I appreciate.

I’m learning much!

Why would we treat you unkindly if you are genuinely seeking knowledge?

The only people we berate are the people who come on here with the attitude of “I know better than you because I do, and nothing you say can change that.” First off, that’s a prideful point of view, and secondly, it shows that you have closed your heart to the Truth. Even if a person is fully Catholic, and lives 100% of the Catholic Dogma, that person should never stop trying to learn more about why things are they are, because the more we know the more we can trust.

You have been quite civil, and seem most interested in learning, as such, we all welcome you as a brother/sister seeking to know God. We lament that you are part of the Jehova’s Witnesses, but that would not prevent us from treating you properly or seeking to help you learn about the Catholic faith ^^

 

[SteveVH]

Peter’s quoting of a Psalm shows us that it is Hades which is the greek word for Sheol - these two terms mean the same thing:
Psa 16:10 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [sheol]; nor wilt thou give thy holy one to see corruption.
Act 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell [hades]: nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.

Gehenna is altogether different, coming from the root meaning ‘valley of Hinnom’.
While hades/sheol can give up those in there, I agree with you that this is not the case with Gehenna.
And since hades and gehenna are different, these two verses make sense without distorting their original meanings:

Rev 20:13 “And the sea gave up the dead that were in it: and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them. And they were judged, every one according to their works.”
This describes those dead coming out of gravedom to be judged, swiftly followed by:

Rev 20:14 “And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire.”
Death and Gravedom itself are destroyed forever in Gehenna.

Well, thank you for making my point. So there are two different places which are being spoken of in Sacred Scripture. Hell (Gehenna), the place of eternal torment, is spoken of in the New Testament more than is heaven. There is no doubt that it is never ending:

“It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where “‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:47-48)

That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

 

[Pythons]

I’m very impressed by your knowledge Python, well done!

You can read about some of these elements via the Wiki article…
…It’s part of their series on “Adventism”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Storrs

The WWCOG ( World Wide Church of God ) and Christalephians are also ‘Adventists’…
…They are just not “Seventh Day” Adventists.

All Adventists promulgate that Jesus was ( prior to Incarnation ) Michael the archangel…
…Who did battle with Lucifer the archangel.
…It is also promulgated that Christ could have sinned and lost His own salvation.

Had this happened the real God ( the only God in the strict sense ) would have eternally vaporized creature christ…
…So that he would have eternally ceased to exist.

The JW’s, SDA’s Christiadelphians, WWCOG, etc reject hundreds of texts in Scripture…
…So that they can continue to promulgate their forms of Arianism.

 

[Porknpie]

Thank you for being civil with me too.
I feel like an outsider here in amongst many very knowledgable people. Even so I have thus far been treated kindly, which I appreciate.

I’m learning much!

Redle -

Sounds like you’ve made a few new friends. First, I want to say that I give you a lot of courage to come to CAF. I understand your words well that you would be shunned as I have a friend who is ex JW. Everyone one this post would tell you that behavior is unacceptable. We are all called to learn more about God, to follow the Truth and to form and follow our conscious. The Lord said to the apostles to go out and preach…he said that to them but the parallel meaning is to us as well. This is not limited to just missionaries.

One subject to come back to… is criticism of the JW New Word Translation bible that you are using and the educational background of the translators (lacking completely or having very limited knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic). We strongly believe that you have an inferior translation of the written Word of God. Suggest talking about this perhaps later. I bring this up now only in the context of discussing scripture on hell. The NWT translators still retained descriptions and direct references of hell used by all of Christianity (to best of my knowledge). The NWT comparisons below are to the New American Bible Revised Edition (NABRE). Notice also that not only is hell FOREVER…but those in it are tormented FOREVER. *They continue to exist in torment. *

Your NWT speaks to the eternity of hell in Matthew 3:12 as a fire that can not be put out.

NWT 3:12 His winnowing shovel is in his hand, and he will completely clean up his threshing floor, and will gather his wheat into the storehouse,** but the chaff he will burn up with fire that cannot be put out.**”

NABRE His winnowing fan is in his hand. He will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

And in Mark 9:43. Again, the fire that can not be put out is hell.

NWT And if ever your hand makes you stumble, cut it off; it is finer for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go off into Gehenna,** into the fire that cannot be put out.**

NABRE If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire.

And Revelation 20:10. In this text, the NWT is correctly translated. Hell is the place of torment…it lasts forever and ever… This is not heaven.

NWT And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur, where both the wild beast and the false prophet [already were]; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

NABRE The Devil who had led them astray was thrown into the pool of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

And in Matthew 18:8. Hell is the everlasting fire.

NWT then, your hand or your foot is making you stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you; it is finer for you to enter into life maimed or lame than to be thrown with two hands or two feet into the everlasting fire.

NABRE If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

One more…Matthew 25:46. Everlasting cutting off is an example of a poor NWT translation. Everlasting life is forever. Everlasting cutting-off should be “eternal punishment”…hell.

NWT And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”

NABRE And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Time for dinner. Pork.

 

[fbl9]

1Pe 3:19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison:
1Pe 3:20 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.

The spirits he preached to here were not dead, they were the imprisoned demons which took on bodily form to be with the women, prior to the flood:
Jud 1:6 And the angels who kept not their principality but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day.

I really wish I had all the answers. I know that I do not

These were kept under darkness, thus the light has not reached them. "For out of Israel a great light shall shine forth"What would be the point of Christ preaching to these that are damned?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Luke 16 has this parable. It’s good to note that this is a parable, and not an historical event.

Was the beggar an especially compassionate man? Would he have acted different if he was in the rich man’s shoes? We are not told that this is so.

Do we conclude from this that all sickly beggars will find automatic divine favour while all those who enjoy good things during their lifetime deserve torment? That is not the point of the parable.

Jesus was talking to the Pharisees when he used this illustration, and the Pharisees were known for looking down on lowly ones, on one occasion calling them accursed.

Since these are symbolic characters with symbolic lives, so too are their deaths symbolic.

What is the context: Jesus had just explained to the Pharisees (in vs 16) that “The law and the prophets were until John”, and it is with the preaching of John and Jesus that the circumstances of the rich man and lazarus change. Their previous way of Judaistic life would come to an end.

The humble Lazarus class die to their former spiritually deprived condition and come into a position of divine favour. Whereas they had earlier looked to the religious leaders for what little dropped from the spiritual table, now the Scriptural truths imparted by Jesus are filling their needs. They are thus brought into the bosom, or favored position, of ‘Abraham’.

On the other hand, those who make up the rich-man group come under divine disfavour because of persistently refusing to accept the Kingdom message taught by Jesus. They thereby die to their former position of seeming favour.

The reversal of roles is stark. Where once the beggar sought a crumb from the rich man, now the rich man seeks a drop from the beggar.

The chasm between the old laws and the new laws is vast, but the situation is not hopeless for the Jewish nation. Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ All they have to do is heed the writings of Moses and the Prophets that identify Jesus as the Messiah and then become his disciples.

But the rich man objects: “No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.” However, he is told: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead." Indicating that if they did not believe the scriptures then they would not believe the risen Christ.

Wow. I’ll now put on my hardhat and await the bricks and bats!

When I started this thread it was to explain the JW belief to someone who asked about it. I don’t anticipate I’ll have time to respond to every objection, though I’ll try to deal with some.

Thanks,
Redle.

The entire parable is below -

Luke 16:19-31 "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue**; for I am tormented in this flame.**

But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Once again there is a distinct, obvious, unavoidable, direct, clear reference to **“this flame”. **There is not a hint of non-existence, and in fact, both sides are aware of the chasm between them.

I’m intrigued by this desire to explain this away, like the Protestant position which tries to ***explain away ***the office set up by Jesus through Peter. It’s dishonest, and flies in the face of the clear intent of the message in Scripture.

 

[minkymurph]

I will use scriptures from the Douay Bible to defend the JW view. It’s one of those issues that we really won’t be able to reach concensus on.
Please note a) JW’s believe ‘hell’ means the grave, a place of death and inactivity, b) JW’s do not believe in an immortal soul, we believe souls can die.

The problem I have with this belief is if the soul is not immortal, then there is no Resurrection.

It’s one thing not to believe in eternal punishment. Not all religions that believe the soul is immortal teach eternal punishment. According to your belief, the resurrected person is one who is exactly like the person who died with all their memory, and the Resurrection of Christ the same? In which case, the resurrected person is not the person who died, but someone exactly like them. God has re-created them rather than resurrected them, and the ‘original’ person has gone forever. The Christ who is now in heaven is not the ‘original’ Son of God, but a Son who is exactly like the first one.

To a Catholic, the whole point of the Resurrection of Christ is it was the Christ who rose was the one and the same Christ who died. Hence the term ‘Resurrection.’ Lazarus was the same Lazarus who died, not another man exactly like Lazarus with all his memory, as with Dorcas. In the Resurrection we are given a new body, but not another life force - soul. You are obviously familiar with Scripture so I won’t quote, (takes up too much word space) but the bible teaches our life force returns to God who is the giver of life and the Catholic believe it is this same life force, the original one God gave, that is clothed in a new body. That is why it is called ‘Resurrection.’ To me, it doesn’t matter how well God makes a person over again, or how like the ‘original’ person they are, they can never be the same person if the ‘original’ life force is extinguished at the point of death and gone forever.

I would also say it raises several questions in terms of the sacrifice of Christ and redemption. I’m sure we concur on living in accordance with Christ’s teaching, but I would say we also concur that we must believe Christ died in order to redeem us. What does believing in the redemption of Christ’s sacrifice entail? Do we merely need to believe the event happened? I would say we concur on why the sacrifice was needed, in that died to atone for the sin of Adam, but how does it redeem us? What made it a sacrifice? In order to live again, do we merely need to believe the event happened for the purpose of redeeming us? If not, what else to we need to believe?

 

[redle]

One subject to come back to… is criticism of the JW New Word Translation bible that you are using and the educational background of the translators (lacking completely or having very limited knowledge of Biblical Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic). We strongly believe that you have an inferior translation of the written Word of God.

Hi Pork,

I see this is a frequent comment on these forums, about the NWT JW’s use. I have divided opinions.

On the one hand it can be very consistent in it’s renderings. As an example I was having a discussion about ‘soul’ (nephesh) using a NIV, and the renderings were all over the place, it was so hard to understand when the same root word was translated into maybe 15 different words. For this the NWT was very good.

I also like the way ‘Jehovah’ has been put back (well I would, wouldn’t I!), but even here I know that it’s been reinserted in some dubious circumstances.

One thing I do not like about the NWT is the insertion of words [like this] to add ‘clarity’ to a verse. Frighteningly I have heard rumours that the latest version will retain those words but remove the ] around them, making it impossible to know what was original text and what was added. Let’s hope this is nothing more than rumour.

For this forum I’ve quoted every single verse from Douay Rheims.

I personally like the KJV, I feel it has some real dignity about it. During my personal study I try to use an interlinear.
One of my most valued Bibles I own is an LXX. I think it’s an original

Hope dinner was tasty,
Redle.

 

[redle]

Once again there is a distinct, obvious, unavoidable, direct, clear reference to **“this flame”. **There is not a hint of non-existence, and in fact, both sides are aware of the chasm between them.

I’m intrigued by this desire to explain this away, like the Protestant position which tries to ***explain away ***the office set up by Jesus through Peter. It’s dishonest, and flies in the face of the clear intent of the message in Scripture.

JW’s do have a description of what that illustration represents, but certainly on this forum it would not be accepted - for JW’s it’s a matter of faith.

Let me say why we ‘try to explain this away’, and I hope you will see that we don’t seek to be dishonest, rather endeavour to find a harmonious solution.

If we accepted it was literal, we would also have to accept that there is indeed a fiery hell.
Given the previous posts about the end of things being death, not life (in torture), that the soul can die, that God wouldn’t do such a thing as torture people, given the whole picture like this we ask “what can this illustration mean?”

For JW’s to make sense of this in harmony with everything else we have come to learn, we really have no choice but to try to explain this away - much to the frustration of both you and I.

 

[redle]

The problem I have with this belief is if the soul is not immortal, then there is no Resurrection.

It’s one thing not to believe in eternal punishment. Not all religions that believe the soul is immortal teach eternal punishment. According to your belief, the resurrected person is one who is exactly like the person who died with all their memory, and the Resurrection of Christ the same? In which case, the resurrected person is not the person who died, but someone exactly like them. God has re-created them rather than resurrected them, and the ‘original’ person has gone forever. The Christ who is now in heaven is not the ‘original’ Son of God, but a Son who is exactly like the first one.

To a Catholic, the whole point of the Resurrection of Christ is it was the Christ who rose was the one and the same Christ who died. Hence the term ‘Resurrection.’ Lazarus was the same Lazarus who died, not another man exactly like Lazarus with all his memory, as with Dorcas. In the Resurrection we are given a new body, but not another life force - soul. You are obviously familiar with Scripture so I won’t quote, (takes up too much word space) but the bible teaches our life force returns to God who is the giver of life and the Catholic believe it is this same life force, the original one God gave, that is clothed in a new body. That is why it is called ‘Resurrection.’ To me, it doesn’t matter how well God makes a person over again, or how like the ‘original’ person they are, they can never be the same person if the ‘original’ life force is extinguished at the point of death and gone forever.

I would also say it raises several questions in terms of the sacrifice of Christ and redemption. I’m sure we concur on living in accordance with Christ’s teaching, but I would say we also concur that we must believe Christ died in order to redeem us. What does believing in the redemption of Christ’s sacrifice entail? Do we merely need to believe the event happened? I would say we concur on why the sacrifice was needed, in that died to atone for the sin of Adam, but how does it redeem us? What made it a sacrifice? In order to live again, do we merely need to believe the event happened for the purpose of redeeming us? If not, what else to we need to believe?

Hi minkymurph,

You make a very persuasive case, thank you.

Given the excellent reasoning above, how does this reconcile with the verse:
Eze 18:4 “Behold all souls are mine: as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.”

 

[Porknpie]

Hi Pork,

I see this is a frequent comment on these forums, about the NWT JW’s use. I have divided opinions.

On the one hand it can be very consistent in it’s renderings. As an example I was having a discussion about ‘soul’ (nephesh) using a NIV, and the renderings were all over the place, it was so hard to understand when the same root word was translated into maybe 15 different words. For this the NWT was very good.

I also like the way ‘Jehovah’ has been put back (well I would, wouldn’t I!), but even here I know that it’s been reinserted in some dubious circumstances.

One thing I do not like about the NWT is the insertion of words [like this] to add ‘clarity’ to a verse. Frighteningly I have heard rumours that the latest version will retain those words but remove the ] around them, making it impossible to know what was original text and what was added. Let’s hope this is nothing more than rumour.

For this forum I’ve quoted every single verse from Douay Rheims.

I personally like the KJV, I feel it has some real dignity about it. During my personal study I try to use an interlinear.
One of my most valued Bibles I own is an LXX. I think it’s an original

Hope dinner was tasty,
Redle.

Redle,

What is your response to my previous post on hell ? Revelation 20:10? Who is they…where is the place of torment that is forever and ever? As my grandfather used to say, h, e, double toothpicks.

they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

 

[Porknpie]

I really wish I had all the answers. I know that I do not

Redle,

You have all answers in knowing the Truth…which scripture says comes from the (Catholic) Church.

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Redle…big questions…

do you believe you are going to heaven? Do you believe literally that only 144,000 will go there? Or will you live an everlasting existance on earth?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

JW’s do have a description of what that illustration represents, but certainly on this forum it would not be accepted - for JW’s it’s a matter of faith.

Let me say why we ‘try to explain this away’, and I hope you will see that we don’t seek to be dishonest, rather endeavour to find a harmonious solution.

If we accepted it was literal, we would also have to accept that there is indeed a fiery hell.
Given the previous posts about the end of things being death, not life (in torture), that the soul can die, that God wouldn’t do such a thing as torture people, given the whole picture like this we ask “what can this illustration mean?”

For JW’s to make sense of this in harmony with everything else we have come to learn, we really have no choice but to try to explain this away - much to the frustration of both you and I.

God allows torture in the natural world, when evil people gain enough power to do so.

In terms of justice, why shouldn’t they be tortured in turn? God is a God of justice, as well as love.

And if you have to “explain things away” when it comes to Scripture, you’ve got a problem.

I don’t think God’s got much respect for people “explaining things away.” There’s a question of truth, whether we like it or not - not wishful thinking based on a preconceived idea that God is so soft He wouldn’t allow torture.

If that’s the case, He surely wouldn’t allow tsunamis, earthquakes, black deaths, concentration camps, smallpox, cancer, rape, murder, war etc. etc. either. Within the last decade we’ve see two massive tsunamis alone that killed hundreds of thousands of people, and in neither case did He give an ounce of warning.

Yet He does allow these terrible things. Unfortunately He’s not soft. He might be the designer of the delicate and beautiful butterfly (which incidentally is a real challenge to the theory of evolution with it’s metamorphosis from egg to larva to grub to chrysalis to butterfly, each stage incredibly different from the others), but He’s also the mind and power behind a black hole.

There are two sides to God, and one of them is absolute holiness backed up by infinite power. He’s biding His time for the moment, but sooner or later He’ll act.

I’ve said this before on this forum too many times, but the reason I’m so convinced about the reality of hell myself is that I had the peculiar experience of my own father turning up in my bedroom the night he died. He materialised near the door, started with an apology for 20 years of blatant and deliberate cruelty, we argued and talked, and at the end he gave this earth shattering almighty scream. Then he disappeared.

But it was quite obvious from his actions that he could see something coming for him. And I still remember the scream. It sure wasn’t “non existence” that he could see. It was far more horrible than that from what I saw of his reaction.

The JW’s are wrong. Hell exists; the devil exists; and he’s the jailer. In fact, I think you’re partly right when you say God doesn’t want to torture people. He lets the devil do it. That’s one of the reasons he exists. And in that respect I’d have to agree with Calvin who stated the devil was the “minister of God’s wrath”. You’re partly right in other words, but God has a jailer, who enjoys his miserable work.

The jailer of course is under condemnation himself, hence the lake of fire at the end.

I suppose you might say Satan is in a no-win situation, but he’s determined to take as many of us with him as he can. And as I said, when demons are exorcised, they scream. They know where they’re going. I’ve spoken to a couple of people who had performed exorcisms, and I remember one of them saying “You should see the way they carry on! They don’t want to go!!”

 

[minkymurph]

Hi minkymurph,

You make a very persuasive case, thank you.

Given the excellent reasoning above, how does this reconcile with the verse:
Eze 18:4 “Behold all souls are mine: as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, the same shall die.”

The NRSV translation is more modern than the Douay version and as such, uses more modern language. It reads, 'Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins shall die. That is not to say use of the word ‘soul’ is wrong. It’s about understanding use of the word ‘soul’ it in the context of the oracle. ‘Soul’ in the context of the oracle is referring to persons who will not receive God’s protection in the coming destruction of Jerusalem because of their sins, and will die as a result. Those who repent will, as we know they did. (Daniel)

Ezekiel 18 is an oracle concerning individual retribution for those who practiced wickedness, and is an appeal to Israel to turn away from sin so they will not die in the coming destruction. This oracle was not written for the purpose of teaching either the soul is immortal, or not is not. Jews at that time believed the soul survived death, as do Jews today. There is nothing in the text to suggest this as there is nor reference to an eschatological dimension; by that I mean man’s eternal destiny, and a final judgement.
That does not mean the principle does not apply - he who lives by the sword shall die by it. It means it was specifically addressed to the Israelite’s for a specific reason; surviving the coming destruction of Jerusalem.

What I have said is supported by the text itself, and repeated throughout the oracle which was intended to be stated, heard (and read) as a whole.

18:10 - 12 'If a son is violent, a shedder of blood …he shall surely die his blood will be upon himself

18:21- 23 But if the wicked turn away from all their sins …none of their transgressions will be remembered, for the righteousness that they have done they will live.

18:32 - For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, says the Lord God. Turn then and live.

 

[KathleenGee]

First of all, Welcome to CAF, Redle…You are very civil. I am an old cradle Catholic and just don’t have the ability to get into alot of Scripture quotes, etc. I will step out to continue to read this thread…very good discussion, and appreciative as well of all the posters here.

Also, Porknpie…thanks for bringing up the issue of what Bible was being used by Redle’s sharing.

 

[redle]

The NRSV translation is more modern than the Douay version and as such, uses more modern language. It reads, 'Know that all lives are mine; the life of the parent as well as the life of the child is mine: it is only the person who sins shall die. That is not to say use of the word ‘soul’ is wrong. It’s about understanding use of the word ‘soul’ it in the context of the oracle. ‘Soul’ in the context of the oracle is referring to persons who will not receive God’s protection in the coming destruction of Jerusalem because of their sins, and will die as a result. Those who repent will, as we know they did. (Daniel)

If nephesh can mean equally ‘life’ or ‘soul’ (which to me is ok, since they are both ‘breathers’) doesn’t this make the immortality of the soul a difficult teaching?

What I mean is, if we have an immortal soul, this is equal to us having an immortal life.
Immortality means we can’t die, so… I’m not sure where I’m heading with this, but I think you can see my dilemma here?

Redle.

 

[redle]

First of all, Welcome to CAF, Redle…You are very civil. I am an old cradle Catholic and just don’t have the ability to get into alot of Scripture quotes, etc. I will step out to continue to read this thread…very good discussion, and appreciative as well of all the posters here.

Also, Porknpie…thanks for bringing up the issue of what Bible was being used by Redle’s sharing.

Thanks for the welcome Kathleen.

If your comment means you are old in years, then it’s a priviledge to have a mature one drop in on this thread.

I’ll stick with using the Douay Rheims (as I have done so far) and if I quote from any other then I’ll be sure to mention it.

Redle.