Tentmaker's Universalist Defense

[GaussLaw]

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/hell_test.html

This is a lengthy but very interesting article I read about hell. 

It certainly made me rethink some of my beliefs theologically, but I would like to see a second opinion.

Many of these arguments mirror those of universalists on this forum, but they go into much more depth.

Several of the key arguments against hell in this are:
1. the pagan origin of the ideas of hell + most original Christians being universalists, and pagans adding the part about eternal hellfire
2. The original Greek/Hebrew manuscripts did not contain the concept of hell, but the Latin translation mistakenly does, from which the 1st believers in hell derived the doctrine.
3. When translated to English, a lot of words were mistranslated to 'hell'. 

There are a whole bunch of other arguments against hell, but many of them are non-scriptural and just about what a loving God would do (very common ones). 

I am curious what some of the more conservative Christians on here (DC Al Fine, JCL for instance) think of those three arguments and the article in general.

One problem I have with the mistranslation argument is that regardless of what name we give for "hell", if Jesus was talking about a place to dread in which you'd be better off plucking your eye out, that's not a good place to be!  It doesn't matter whether that's sheol, gehenna, hell, or Hades.  So a real mistranslation would have to be of the whole parable, not just 1 word about hell.   I would like to see this addressed in more detail what the alternate meaning of the teachings about cutting your arm off/plucking out your eye could mean if it didn't mean punishment after death.

Just some stuff to chew over at the very least........

[afleitch]

For me while the NT shows a narrative that includes moments where by Jesus /those writing about him is a little unhinged, Mark 9:47 would be one of those, if it wasn’t for the fact it was yet another borrowed metaphor. The NT is littered with them, often borrowed from the tragedies. Metaphorically the association between being able to see and the ability to understand is a common Greek metaphor. It’s used to effect in Oedipus Rex for example towards the end of the play where he gouges his eyes out with pins. It is the blind prophet Tiresias who is knowledgeable, yet Oedipus cannot see his nature or his crime yet is able to see. Tiresias says to him; ‘So, you mock my blindness? Let me tell you this. You with your precious eyes, you're blind to the corruption of your life.'  It is only after he gouges out his eyes that he can see his own wrongdoing.

[DC Al Fine]

There's two separate issues here. This first is the existence of hell as fiery inferno and the second is hell as some sort of bad place/separation from God. I think the case against the former is much stronger than the case against the latter. The problem with denying the existence of any sort of hell is that it raises questions about the rest of religion in terms of justice and the like.

To paraphrase Nathan, if there's no hell (2nd version), what's the point of the rest of the NT?

Personally I think hell is the state of separation from God, which in turn feels more like an OT Sheol than the fiery idea of hell.

[© tweed]

To paraphrase Nathan, if there's no hell (2nd version), what's the point of the rest of the NT?

Personally I think hell is the state of separation from God, which in turn feels more like an OT Sheol than the fiery idea of hell.

there's plenty to talk about on the first question if you like, as I believe reading the NT as a handbook on how to avoid afterlife-Hell is a major error.

on the second by my understanding the prevailing view among second-temple Jews was that there was no afterlife save for the special few 'prophets' that got beamed up to God, and that Sheol was not a place where the soul retained consciousness.

[Adam Griffin]

I don't have much to offer to the discussion in a general sense, but I thought I'd note that as someone who was raised loosely in the Jehovah's Witness flavor of religion, this is the same viewpoint that they have on the matter.

• "Hell" is eternal death ("the great crowd"), and this is believed to be the case due to the meaning of the word shoel and gehenna (I recall hearing that even hades did not pertain to fire, but death)
• 144,000 ("the little flock") inherit the "new heaven"
• The remaining righteous ("the other sheep") inherit the "new earth"

Everyone (except for the little flock) is resurrected at the end times, with the wicked passing on once and for all, while the other sheep inherit the new earth.

All of this is based off of Acts 24:15 and Revelation 21:1 if I recall correctly.