What Did Jesus Teach (about hell)?

The traditional view of hell rests on four pillars: that the OT says nothing; that the Jewish view at the time of Jesus was one of eternal conscious punishment; that Jesus’ view was thoroughly Jewish; and that the NT authors follow Jesus. The first pillar is wobbly; the OT does speak about the “end” of the wicked and the idea is one of a “consuming” fire (not tormenting fire). The second? Wobblier. There were three views: a consuming fire, a purifying fire, and a tormenting fire. Third? Today we sketch Fudge’s short chps on what Jesus taught, and I shall sketch his sketch.

— Read on www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/01/09/what-did-jesus-teach-about-hell/

________________________

OTHER RESOURCES:

The Apocalypse’s Lake of Fire | Jesus Creed

2 thoughts on “What Did Jesus Teach (about hell)?

  1. Leigh_dePaor

    First: Patheos is a terrible website to use as a reference, being filled with straw man arguments and logical fallacies to beat the band!
    Second: The article has interesting points, not fully developed and inaccurately calls the account of Lazarus & the rich man a parable when we see that the people in Jesus parables were never named: “a poor man named Lazarus” is clearly a real person.
    Check out Koinonia House teaching on this for good reference https://youtu.be/g-hNmkSdliU

    Like

    1. Leigh, my ole friend and brother,

      Thanks for your advice. Please allow me to reply to it.

      1. Patheos is a website that hosts many blogs across many sectarian and denominational lines. That is, the site hosts many independent blogs and bloggers. The above article is by Dr. Scot McKnight, distinguished professor of early Christian history and of theology. His observations are peer reviewed and scholarly.

      2. While I appreciate the fact that Chuck Missler has drawn so many to study the Bible, I do find myself questioning the overtly mystical leanings of Missler in his teachings, namely gematria and numerology and eisegesis via stretches of the meanings of names in geneologies. In short, I do not trust Missler.

      About the Lazarus account: it is debateable what kind of teaching this is, factual account or parable. Again, I lean to trusting McKnight over Missler, because Missler gains his interpretation from fundamentalists who staunchly do not regard genres and context as fairly as others. Also I find it no inconsistency that McKinght and others call him “a poor man.” Indeed, that is the sketch given to Lazarus.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s