What's your view on Hell?

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 KJV
But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. [14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. [15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. [16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: [17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. [18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Hebrews 12:1
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

He specifically says "of myself I will NOT boast EXCEPT in mine infirmities", so he is speaking of someone ELSE having ecstatic experiences.

Also, in verse 3 he says "and" showing he refers to two different persons. There is nothing to suggest they are the same person, and his diction strongly implies they are not the same person. And therefore the passage in no way proves paradise is in heaven.

Let me go on this one as this is an example of your eisegesis. You are putting your theology on the text. When you come with that interpretation the cohesion of the text breaks apart. So Paul goes all the way to talk about "such a man" just to then say "good for him"?
It is a lot more sensible to realize that he is talking about himself and just playing the game of talking in third person and giving glory to that third person. Then towards the end he says that because of the abundance of revelations he received he got a thorn, so he boasts instead in his tribulations.

Your interpretation breaks the cohesion of the text, the same way your moving of the coma in Luk 23:43 as I explained in another post.

Here are some commentaries about this text:

(Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
2. Translate, "I know," not "I knew."
a man—meaning himself.
.... cut for brevity...
5. of myself—concerning myself. Self is put in the background, except in respect to his infirmities. His glorying in his other self, to which the revelations were vouchsafed, was not in order to give glory to his fleshly self, but to bring out in contrast the "infirmities" of the latter, that Christ might have all the glory.

[*](ESV Global Study Bible Notes) 12:2–3 I know a man . . . this man. Paul’s hesitancy to boast of his visions is reflected in his use of the third person (as if it had happened to someone else).

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
2...
The term “a man in Christ,” as a way of speaking of himself, ...

Meyer NT Commentary
2.I know a man … who was snatched away. Paul speaks of himself as of a third person, because he wishes to adduce something in which no part of the glory at all falls on the Ego proper.

Benson Commentary
2 Corinthians 12:2-3. I knew a man in Christ — That is, a Christian. He must undoubtedly have meant himself, or the whole article had been quite foreign to his purpose. Indeed, that he meant himself is plain from 2 Corinthians 12:6-7.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
12:1-6 There can be no doubt the apostle speaks of himself.

Expositor's Greek Testment
2 Corinthians 12:2. οἶδα ἄνθρ. ἐν Χρ. κ.τ.λ.: I know (not “I knew” as the A.V. has it) a man in Christ, i.e., a Christian (see reff.), fourteen years ago (for the constr. πρὸ ἐτ. δεκ. cf. John 12:1)—whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not (the words distinctly indicate St. Paul’s belief that perception is possible for a disembodied spirit); God knoweth—such an one caught up to the third heaven. Cf. Ezekiel 8:3. “The Spirit lifted me between the earth and the heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem.” [*]The date of this trance must have been about 41 or 42 A.D., years of which we have no details so far as St. Paul’s life is concerned; probably he was then at Tarsus (Acts 9:30; Acts 11:25; cf. the reference to St. Paul in the dialogue Philopatris, § 12; ἐς τρίτον οὐρανὸν ἀεροβατήσας).

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
2. I knew a man] That this is the Apostle is proved by 2 Corinthians 12:7. The word knew should, both here and in 2 Corinthians 12:3, be rendered know.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 2. - I knew; rather, I know. A man. St. Paul speaks in this indirect way of himself (see vers. 5, 7).

The sensible understanding of the text is that this is a rhetorical devise, a literary feature, to talk about himself.

So yes, Paradise is in the third heaven, and the thief was in Paradise that day with Jesus, ... and the story of Lazarus is not the only passage in the Scriptures that defends the doctrine of the soul conscious out of the body. So no, it is not my position that "it wasn't clear in the OT until the story of Lazarus", but "till the bunch of texts in the NT I have already posted". That's a better way to reconcile the apparent contradiction between the OT and NT than doing gymnastic hermeneutics, don't you think? There are precedents in other topics of greater understanding or clearer understanding coming in the NT.

You are right that Jesus didn't bring the revelation, as it was already a belief before, however Jesus and Paul themselves believed in it, as it was a correct interpretation. Some "scholars" believe that it came from external religion influences, the same way they explain names for angels in the book of Daniel. I prefer to believe in the authority of the Scriptures. I prefer to believe that the idea, if was endorsed by Jesus and Paul, was the result of going deeper into the Scripture into afterlife because of the increase awareness of afterlife during the captivity, looking for hope.

For example, resurrection and how would happen was not 100% clear and explicitly taught in the OT as it is in the NT. You had to dig deep to see it, to the point that there was a major religious group, the Sadducees, that didn't believe in it. And Jesus used a no very obvious passage to defend it (I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). The Pharisees were right.

[1 God]

Should Satan, the deceiver of the universe, that destroyed billions of souls, be annihilated or sent to an eternal hell?

[1 God]

It takes a lot of work to debunk the Biblical theme of everlasting punishment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1 God

It takes a lot of work to debunk the Biblical theme of everlasting punishment.

thinks debunking a judeo-catholic pagan mythology is debunking the Bible...

ngmi

The Bible teaches the everlasting punishment of sinners, which is the second death. No passing Go, no 200 dollars.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Esaias

thinks debunking a judeo-catholic pagan mythology is debunking the Bible...

ngmi

The Bible teaches the everlasting punishment of sinners, which is the second death. No passing Go, no 200 dollars.

How can it last forever if you can’t feel it or sense it?

[Tithesmeister]

Any discussion of hell should probably include these verses:

Mark 9:

[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Any discussion of hell should probably include these verses:

Mark 9:

[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Probably.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Any discussion of hell should probably include these verses:

Mark 9:

[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

The word "hell" there is not Hades in Greek but Gehenna, which points to the lake of fire where the unjust will be sent after being resurrected.

The passage is a hyperbole. Why? because you ain't going to cut your hand off, but the idea is to change your heart so you are fully determined to make radical decision if something is making you fall. You are not going to enter to eternal life with one eye, because healing is included, but the description is that it would be even better to enter with one eye than going to hell.

[1 God]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Any discussion of hell should probably include these verses:

Mark 9:

[43] And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[44] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[45] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[46] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
[47] And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:
[48] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Parable?