by theMadJW 277 Replies latest watchtower bible
Here are some authentic hell worms. My buddy runs a bait shop and he gives God a good deal if he buys them in bulk. Only stipulation is that during fishing season God has to wait for the fishermen to get their bait before he can purchase. Any unrighteous person will just have to suffer by fire if the fishermen buy all the hell worms for bait.
Hell Worms
Think About It
Just wondering what you make of these? - Chalam
Hello, Chalam, and thank you for asking about them. Please understand that I am still considering the meaning of all the things that speak about hell or eternal torture, but I will do my best to explain where I am at in my thoughts. What I am trying to do is look at each account that hell is referred to and see where it stands as being the exclusion of the kingdom of God. This exclusion being the spiritual death that Jesus referred to in the here and now.
I also use the NIV.
Actually, I would rather share my thoughts on the entire parable of Lazarus and the rich man. Assuming you believe that it is a parable?
Luke 16:19 - 'There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.'
The rich man represents the nation who had the kingdom of God. (Purple and fine linen representing royalty - a royal priesthood, spiritually rich on the word and favor of God) The 'natural' descendants of Abraham. It is probably a lot more specific in terms of which sect of that nation, actually, as we will see later.
Luke 16:20 - At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked at his sores.
Lazarus represents those who did not have the kingdom. Those who longed for those spiritual crumbs. This could refer to the Gentiles. (even the dogs long to eat the crumbs that fall from the children's table. Matt: 15-27) But I think its more of a general term that refers to all who were poor in spirit/ sneered upon because they were sinners or not worthy of the promises of God.
Luke 16:22 - The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. (in hell)
Take note that the beggar is carried to Abraham's side, not God's. I think this represents a change in the status of who can claim Abraham as their father. This is referred to throughout the NT. (John 8: 39-40. ...'If you were Abraham's children," said Jesus, "then you would do the things Abraham did. As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things.) I think it represents Lazarus as receiving the Kingdom, and the rich man losing it.
Luke 16:23 - 25 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.
The torment the rich man feels is from the loss of his place; the loss of the kingdom. The fact that the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to ease him, shows that Lazarus now has the kingdom.
Note also, that there was no mention of the rich man ever comforting Lazarus.
If the rich man had the kingdom, then that should have been his job, yes? Isn't that one of the reasons that Jesus came down so hard on the Pharisees and teachers of the law? They did not produce fruit for the kingdom, and so it was taken away from them and given to those who would produce its fruit. They were left outside their own kingdom.
Luke 16: 26-27 'And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
Paul explains this better than I ever could, when speaking to the Gentiles. Romans 11:25 "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in."
Again, a reference to the reversal of the rich man and Lazarus' roles.
And what is that chasm? What is that stumbling block? Jesus as the Messiah.
Luke 16: 27 - 28 He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
I had to dig on this one. So consider this - Genesis 49:10 - The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his. It becomes more clear that the royal priesthood (those who hold the law and the rule) that the rich man represents is Judah - and Judah had five brothers through Leah. Genesis 36:23
This seems like a lot to have to sift through, but the jews, and especially the Pharisees and teachers of the law, knew their history and lineage. This would not have been lost on them.
So the rich man (Judah/the Jews) is hoping that Abraham will send the one who now has the kingdom and word of God, to warn his brothers and save them from this exclusion.
Luke 16: 29-30 Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, "if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"
This seems self-explanatory. They did not recognize the Christ through Moses and the Prophets, and they still denied the Christ after he rose from the dead. Jesus also strengthens the meaning of this: John 5: 45-47 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"
Others have broken this parable down far better than I have, and some of the things that I list could probably mean other things... but this rendition seems far more in tune with Jesus' teaching about the kingdom of heaven being taken from the Pharisees/Jewish nation and given to those who will recognize Christ, and produce its fruit.
I'm going to post this, so I don't accidentally lose it, and then I'll respond to the other passages you listed.
Tammy
Continued...
Mark 9:47-48 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. 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 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
First, entering the kingdom of God in any passage can certainly be applied to the here and now - Matthew 21:31 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."
And again,
Luke 17: 20-21 Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, 'the Kingdom of God does not come visibly, nor will people say 'Here it is' or 'There it is', because the kingdom of God is within you.
Since we can apply the kingdom of God to the here and now, then we can also apply 'hell' (exclusion from the kingdom of God) to the here and now.
I know that the 'worm does not die,' references Isaiah. Comparatively, in Matthew, when Jesus speaks of those people excluded from the kingdom, he says they are thrown into the darkness where there will be gnashing of teeth (jealousy). And Paul says - Romans 11:11- Again I ask, Did they(the jews) stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious."
Consider also that this here and now began at the time when the kingdom was taken from the jews and given to those who would produce its fruit, and continues today.
Their worm has not died, and their fire has not been quenched for nearly two thousand years.
Jude 1:7 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.
First, Sodom and Gomorrah did not have God - since they gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. Second, they were wiped out and only the memory of the things they did and their destruction remains to serve as an example. So take your pick at which of those two things is the example of eternal fire: the exclusion of God, or their total destruction.
(keep in mind that none of their fate
is eternal if that day of judgment is meant to be more bearable for Sodom than for Capernaum. Matthew 11:23-24)
This tells me there is punishment for the wicked when Jesus returns. But there does seem to be some sort of conflict in what we understand eternal punishment to mean - unless we believe that there are varying levels of severity in eternal punishment. Example - all the passages that say the day of judgment will be more bearable for some than for others.
Honestly, I don't know exactly how to reconcile this or others to my search yet. That doesn't mean there isn't an explanation; only that I haven't found it yet. It's hard to read the NT with eyes that have no bias to the things we've already been taught.
But I take comfort in the fact that I knew there had to be another explanation for Lazarus and the Rich Man, long before I ever found and understood one.
I'm not going to try and go into Revelations yet. The book is extremely symbolic, and open to many different interpretations. I could probably squeeze my thoughts in there if I wanted to, or find people who have already done so... but I'm really trying to ensure that I look at scripture without the bias of someone else's conclusions.
So these are my thoughts and views. I apologize, because they're probably rambling since I'm still in the searching stage. But I just want to read the NT with eyes that aren't biased by what has been commonly been taught in organized religion, and I want to keep the love of Christ utmost in my mind as I'm doing this.
God-willing, I will find the truth. (None of which I believe is more important than living according to Christ's teachings in the here and now, btw)
Best,
Tammy
P.S. - Can someone explain how I highlight someone else's comments in my post? Every time I try to do it, it doesn't work.
Those who reject God will end up living in timelessness also, but without the one thing they need to be happy: God. But it will be their own choice about the matter. They will not just be sent somewhere because they inadvertently broke some little rule or other. It will be because they have made a fully informed choice, of their own free will, knowing full well the consequences of their choice, to live without God, and, when offered the chance to change their mind and repent, will refuse. Those who do that will be, completely as a result of their own choice, in hell.
I find that quite interesting, Burn, a very enlightened teaching compared to most teachings about hell found in Christianity, but that conclusion about timelessness is not found in teachings like Buddhism. In fact, they would say that discovering timelessness is the highest possible "state". In timelessness the existence of the separate sense of self no longer exists, therefore there would be no "I" to suffer separation from all that is (including notions of God), no "I" to exercise choice. Timelessness is where conciousness is purest, they teach, and pure consciousness is one's true essence. The "I" that people take themselves to be is the illusion that people are caught up in; outside of thoughts of "me" in the mind no separate entity will ever be found (I challenge anyone to find one).
What is it that "sees" this "idea of me?" - That's what you really are, and there is nothing personal about it. All of this removes the "personal" - not only the personal "me", but the personal God of Abrahamic religions that is believed to be separate from "me". That dualistic world view breeds all sorts of trouble among people of differing beliefs as they seek to protect cherished ideas that are identified with. Buddhists, and certain others from other traditions and teachings, seek to discover that reality is nondual in nature, that there is no separation between any "others", and that all are the same, pure consciousness, in different "disguises" while in form - that is the essence of spiritual enlightenment, sometimes called Self-realization (a capital S on Self implies/denotes there is only ONE consciousness and you are that consciousness, and realizing that is Self-realization). Disciplines like Zen Buddhism are one-pointedly dedicated to experiencing timelessness while still in the human body.
To believe in the concept of hellfire is to endorse the concept of Genocide. I put anyone that believes in that crap in the same category of Joseph Stalin, Hitler and any other dictator that slaughtered the masses.
Genocide is NEVER the solution, never. It's when people entertain ANY scanario which it IS a solution that leads to actual Genocide.
I see belief in Hellfire as a threat to myself and those around me, and I will always fight against even fairly tale concepts of mass slaughter, it's that f**king serious.
-Sab
It is quite simple; any believing in 'Hellfire' (a deliberately mistranslated term coined to add'credibility' to the church dogma) knows neither God, Christ, nor Bible.
Hellfire ,it's only in man's imagination. I'll say it again, when you use the Bible to support the answer to this question, you are using heresay information, not first hand.
I'll quote one for you. He who has died has been acquitted from his sin. Acquitted, released, no other punishment, death is the payment for sin. Again, this is according to the Bible, hearsay information.
Blueblades
Excellent, MC!
mc:
I'll quote one for you. He who has died has been acquitted from his sin. Acquitted, released, no other punishment, death is the payment for sin. Again, this is according to the Bible, hearsay information.
My reply: Read the entire context...1st 10 or twelve verses in their entirety and you will see it is not speaking of a physical death but rather dying as to sin.
So, you believe in the 'immortal' soul, and that "Death" doesn't MEAN death? To die is just to change form?
