No Purgatory still isn't Biblical in Universal Salvation based Theology.

Every now and then I'll see an ally on Universal Salvation say something like "The Catholics were right about Purgatory" and even I have bordered on the sentiment in the past.  However that completely misunderstands the purpose Purgatory has in Augustinian, Mediaeval and Tridentine Theology.

The root word that Purgatory comes from is Biblical, there is talk about Purging Fire in Scripture, however it is used as a verb not a noun.  

Purgatory as a name of a plane of existence is based on pointing to the verses that most undeniably refer to Corrective Judgment like in Malachi 3 and 1 Corinthians 3 and all the Refining Fire passages The Total Victory of Christ likes to talk about and saying they are referring to something different from The Lake of Fire in Revelation or from the Gehenna Fire Jesus warned of .  While those of us who have a proper Biblical understanding of Universal Salvation conclude those are all the same and can't be separated from each other.  

Augustine was clear that Purgatory was only for the Baptized.  It was in origin explicitly about rejecting Universal Salvation by creating an alternate explanation for the existence of Corrective Punishment passages.

It also when combined with the Platonist denial of Soul Sleep created a teaching that Purgatory is a place many of the dead currently are in, and this is where the idea of Praying for The Dead came from, which lead to the whole Indulgences thing, the Indulgences never claimed to get anyone out of "Hell" they were about shortening one's potential stay in Purgatory.  I however view all of the relevant passages as not happening till The White Throne Judgment after the Bodily Resurrection of even Unbelievers.

Purgatory was not an incidental doctrine that came to be labeled Catholic during the Reformation, it was actually vital to understanding the inciting Incident, Martín Luther wasn't even agaisnt the Office of the Papacy yet when he wrote the 95 Theses, everything he initially talked about were Symptoms of the false Doctrine of Purgatory.

Purgatory isn't a term for affirming Corrective Punishment, it's a term for limiting it only to Believers.

The Pagan Greek Origins of Puritan Sexual Morality.

I wrote an Amazon Review for the book Plato or Paul?: The Origins of Western Homophobia by Theodore W. Jennings Jr.  [I recently learned that Jennings had passed away in 2020, may he Rest in Peace.]

I have also more recently obtained The Classical Origins of Modern Homophobia by Robert H. Allen.  I may also write an Amazon Review for it. 

I first learned about the Homophobia of Plato's The Laws however when I discovered this Website.

https://people.well.com/user/aquarius/

In it's article Plato: The Serpent in the Garden of Sexuality.  

My own past blog posts on this issue are a bit outdated now due to their references to things I've since changed my mind on, or at least now have a more informed opinion on.  Like how I had fallen into the trap of mistakenly thinking there was anything Communist or Socialist about either of Plato's proposed political systems.

Each of those three discussions of this issue have areas I disagree with.  None are as "Conservative" as I am about the origins of The Bible.  Only Jennings agrees with me that Paul is on our side, and Allen's agenda is not to exonerate The Bible of Homophobia at all, he alone of them agrees with the Homophobic reading of even the Leviticus verses.  Actually he cites a Saul Olyan that it's specifically referring to Male on Male Anal Penetration, which is close to my old position, but I now believe the "Wife's Bed" and "Abomination to Her" readings are the key to proving this is not a unilateral condemnation of any specific Sex act much less any type of relationship.

I think Jennings's theory on what Arsenokoites refers to (which is that it's essentially Rape) is probably most correct.  But I don't agree with his argument against it being in any way an allusion to the Leviticus verses, I simply think what he correctly argues Arsenkoites refers to, is what some people in Ancient Corinth and Ephesus thought those Leviticus verses were about.  His argument that Paul doesn't generally cite Leviticus to make moral arguments is irrelevant to the Vice Lists, because in those he was just using terms his audience would be familiar with, the vice lists are not themselves arguments against the behaviors listed.

I think Jennings's break down of Romans 1 is useful. but I still mainly side with Colby Martin's take on that in his Unclobber series.  Which is that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical rant, that he's laying out the worldview the Epistle as a whole is written against, paraphrasing passages from Wisdom of Solomon and adding in Philo's usage of the "Para Phusis" concept introduced in The Laws, in order to spend the rest of the Epistle refuting that world view, in Romans 11 what God does is Para Phusis clearly rejecting the idea that being Para Phusis is immoral.

And Allen's cynical readings of The Bible lead to similar issues with extra-Biblical Church writers as well.  Clement of Alexandria was the first Christian to bring this "Para Phusis" Sexual Morality into the Church.  The crime of "corrupting youth" in works like the Didache is not Homosexuality or anything Sexual, just as it wasn't when Athens executed Socrates for that crime.  I likewise feel Allen is being unfair to both Justin Martyr and Tertullian.

The reason why I didn't put Plato in the title of this post is because Allen argues Pythagorean Philosophy and it's Dualism is the ultimate origin of this problem.  He argues Authentic Plato may have been at least partially influenced by Pythagoreanism, but also argues that The Laws as we have it is not an authentic work of Plato but a forgery produced and transmitted primarily by Pythagoreans.  And I think he might be correct on that.  Here is a YouTube video expressing similar ideas about the origins of Laws and how to interpret The Republic.

But still Authentic Plato or not the development of Platonic Schools of Philosophy was influenced by The Laws on these issues and others, which in turn influenced Roman Stoicism, Neopythagoreanism, Hellenistic Judaism, Gnosticism, The Alexandrian School of Christianity, and Neo-Platonism, which also all influenced each other in late Antiquity culminating in John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo.  Allen also documents how across the board Pagan Roman Society was Homophobic having been influenced by Southern Italian Pythagoreanism long before they even came into contact with the Eastern Mediterranean.

However another theory on the perceived inconsistencies between The Laws and the seemingly more positive Sexual attitudes expressed in works like Symposium is that Plato changed over the course of his life, perhaps partly from Pythagorean influence.  The Laws is considered the very last book he wrote and Symposium one of the earliest.

But going back to more indisputably authentic Plato, the title character of Timaeus (who's still around during Critias) is inferred to be a Pythagorean in the text of that dialogue.  So what Timaeus says can reasonably be presumed to be at least what Plato thought the Pythagoreans believed.  And it's from Timaeus we get what's considered the Platonist Creation Myth including the The Demiurge.  What's up for debate is how much the author wants us to take the title character and his ideas seriously.

The Website I linked to up top also has interesting stuff on the "Born Eunuch" issue and other subjects.  But it's article The Historic Origins of Church Condemnation of Homosexuality I don't recommend.  I have found no other sources claiming Eusebius of Nicomedia was ever referred to as a Eunuch.  meanwhile the pro Nicene Emperor Constans was a known Homosexual, before Theodosius I it was the Arian Emperors who were far more oppressive to those who disagreed with them.  [Update: So the Eunuch he's talking isn't the Bishop of Nicomedia who died in 341 but a different Eusebius mentioned in Athanasius's History of The Arians during the "Papacy" of Liberius.  Still I feel it's wrong to say the Arian controversy is why The Church embraced this Pythagorean sexual morality.  There were clearly Homosexuals and Platonists on both sides, Arian theology wouldn't be possible without the Timaeus based distinction between the Demiurge and the Monad, though making that distinction arguably begins with Numenius of Apamea in the 2nd Century.]

It's not just Homophobia, condemning all Sex Outside Marriage has the same roots in The Laws attributed to Plato.  As well as the idea that Sex is only for Reproduction which 1 Corinthians 7 explicitly contradicts.  What's almost Prophetic about it is how it talks about using Religion to condition society to react to Same Sex love the same way they do Incest.  These people were never fully able to get the Greeks to believe such things about their Native gods, but once many Greeks started worshiping the God of Abraham without a proper understanding of Bronze Age Semitic culture, that was when this long term scheme to lie about God's attitude towards Sex was able to take off.

Here is another Article I found about Pythagorean Sexual Morality.  And here is one on Pythagoras and Celibacy.

And it's not just the Sexual Morality of The Laws either.  Some people accuse Plato of being Proto-Fascist just based on The Republic, but The Laws is even more indistinguishable from the actual definition of Fascism.  Allen argued that the Pythagorean movement was tied to Totalitarianism already even before Plato's time.  Meanwhile the Calvinist view of Election which derives from Augustine's Gnostic Predestinationism lends itself well to the in-group vs out-group mentality.

Connecting this Sexual Morality to Platonism is useful because of how many other Unbiblical Ideas to enter Christianity are also tied to Plato's both direct and indirect influence on Greco-Roman Church Writers, including ideas opposed by many Conservative Evangelicals today.  So maybe a good way to open some minds is to show how these Sexual attitudes are tied to other doctrines they don't like.

Not all Platonist Ideas to enter the Church became part of Mainstream Christian thought.  Gnosticism and Marcionism were condemned as Heretical, as well as the Pre-Existence of Souls doctrine often associated with Origen, and Arianism which was also influenced by the Theology of Timaeus.  Still those ideas are related to things that did become mainstream.  Most casual Christians do have a fairly Platonist Understanding of the Immortality of the Soul simply minus the Reincarnation and Pre-Existence (Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus in 1336 basically canonized the After Life depicted in Gorgias for the Western Church.), which in turn helps lead to Full Preterism and any other Eschatology that denies a Literal Bodily Resurrection. 

Divine Impassability and Divine Immutability which I plan on making a separate post on are also tied to Platonist understandings of The Divine.  And a section in Gorgias definitely influenced the Traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of Hell and The Lake of Fire.

Evangelicals who don't like how more mainline denominations have been rejecting taking The Old Testament literally should know that not only is that a Platonist influence but the Allegorists are open about that.  In Brad Jersak's seminar on the subject he brags about how the Early Church Fathers decided to take the same approach to the Hebrew Bible that Plato and other Philosophers took to Homer and Hesiod.  He leaves out how the Antiochene School rejected that idea and were hyper-literalists.

Even Plato wasn't wrong on everything, he correctly concluded that the Earth was Round.  And that is why the most openly anti-Plato Christians on YouTube right now are the Flat Earthers.  So someone should explain to them how their Puritan Sexual morality has the same Platonist roots.  Still these Flat Earthers are unwittingly Pythagorean themselves with their Dome Cosmology resulting in a hard separation between the Divine and Earthly realms, and Rob Skiba even entertaining the view that we didn't have physical bodies before The Fall which is outright Gnostic.

One Pythagorean idea that was only ever accepted among some of the Full Blown Gnostics was Reincarnation, that one was especially impossible to make fit into The Bible.  But I do feel those who on Eschatology argue John The Baptist was the return of Elijah promised by Malachi's final verse are unwittingly planting a seed for it.

Over the course of the 2nd through 6th centuries Greco-Roman Christians increasingly took on Platonist Influences but in different ways.  Some seemed to be taking the Dialogue structure more so then any Metaphysics.  However when I look at Athenagoras of Athens who came a little before even Clement, it seems like the Sexual Morality of Laws was one of the first aspects of Platonism Christians embraced.  Maybe it's because even early on Paul's use of Para Phusis was easy to misunderstand.  Or maybe it's because this Minority religion mistakenly felt they should be rebelling agaisnt the Morals of mainstream Greek Society which it so happened was also what the Pythagoreans were doing.

Some similarities between Neoplatonism and Hellenic Judeo-Christians are the former being influenced by the latter, Numenius of Apamea definitely studied Jewish Platonists like Philo, and Ammonius Saccas was raised a Christian but then left the faith before becoming a teacher of Plotinus.  The puritanical Sexual Morality however definitely began with the Platonists not the Christians as this post has shown.

The Egyptian Heresy of Eternal Damnation

Augustine of Hippo and other Latin writers of his time are usually given as being the chief popularizers of Endless Torment (Augustine admitted in his writings that the majority believed in Universal Salvation).  But the key to most of Augustine's beliefs, (at least the ones I think he was wrong on, which are a lot of them), was his preference for an Allegorical Non-Literal interpretation of Scripture and willingness to borrow from Platonic Philosophy.

In the Greek speaking Church those two things were primarily characteristic of the Alexandrian School.  And indeed Augustine was known to have communicated with Cyril of Alexandria, and Cyril also taught Endless Torment.

And so ought we to reckon for ourselves; for to endure patiently, and maintain the conflict with courage, brings with it great reward, and is highly desirable, and wins for us the blessings bestowed by God: while to refuse to suffer death in the flesh for the love of Christ, brings upon us lasting, or rather never-ending punishment. For the wrath of man reaches at most to the body, and the death of the flesh is the utmost that they can contrive against us: but when God punishes, the loss reaches not to the flesh alone;----how could it?----but the wretched soul also is cast alone; with it into torments. Let our lot therefore rather be the honoured death; for it makes us mount up to the commencement of an eternal life, to which of necessity are attached those blessings also which come from the divine bounty: and let us flee from and despise a life of shame; a life accursed, and of short duration, and which leads down to bitter and everlasting torment.

From his Commentary on Luke Sermon 87.  The correspondence between Augustine and Cyril further confirms this (Letter 4*).

Sometimes Cyril has been cited as a supporter of Universal Salvation, but that is based on his reference to the Harrowing of Hell, which plenty of enemies of Universal Salvation do still believe in.

Don't forget that the text of the Apocalypse of Peter that removes the reference to the eventual Salvation of all Sinners is the one found in Egypt.  I have argued that that scene was in the original version.

Alexandrians who were okay with Universal Salvation like Clement, Origen and maybe Athanasius were okay with it in-spite of their Alexandrianism not because of it.  With Cyril we see there were counter examples among the Alexandrians, but I can't find any counter examples among the highly Literalist Antiochene School.  Even the Cappadocians' support of Universal Salvation seems to reflect closer affinity to Antioch then Alexandria, Cappadocia was not far from Nisibis and Edessa where offshoots of the School of Antioch existed during their lifetime, and Basil had been Bishop of Caesarea, home of another related school, and Gregory of Nazianzus obtained the position of Bishop of Constantinople with the help of Meletius of Antioch..  Gregory was also critical of Origen on some issues.  Among the Antiochians who strongly opposed the Allegorical approach of Origen was  Eustathius of Antioch who was at the Council of Nicaea and a strong ally of Athanasius in opposing Arianism, he blamed Origenism for Arianism, Eustathius's possible support of Universal Salvation is disputable.

Athanasius does seem to be an exception to the general rule among prominent Christian figures of Alexandria in general, his writings rarely quotes anything outside The New Testament and the few times he discuses Greek Philosophy he doesn't seem to have understood it well.   Maybe he wasn't a Literalist in a similar way to the Antiochians, but he was different from other Alexandrians.

It was the Alexandrian acceptance of Plato that opened the door for the endless punishment doctrine taught in The Republic to creep into the Church.  That Eternal Torment seemingly took the longest of any Platonic ideas to catch on in even the Alexandrian Church is all the more evidence of how Unbiblical it was.

Plato's later dialogues like Republic, Timaeus and Laws are thought to be heavily influenced by the Pythagoreans, Pythagoras was said to have spent some time in Egypt.  Plato also presents his family as passing down knowledge Solon learned in Egypt.  Clement of Alexandria himself claims Pythagoras and Plato got many of their teachings from the Egyptians.

The Ancient Egyptians believed the Hearts of the Impure were devoured by the monster Ammit condemning them to eternal restlessness.

The Bible itself gives good reason to trust Antioch over Egypt when it comes to Church History.  Acts strangely doesn't record an Apostolic Church being set up in Egypt at all, but Antioch is where Believers were first called Christians, and where Paul started most of his missions, and we know Peter was there for a time thanks to Galatians.

Many will accuse Universal Salvation of being something taught to appease the world, but to me it looks like the secular world, even specifically the politically and socially liberal or leftist world, doesn't actually object to hell that much.  The Horror Genre is now unwilling to settle for just death, they have to literally depict people going to Hell, like in Drag Me To Hell, or American Horror Story The Coven.  I watch a lot of YouTube Video Essays about popular culture from fellow SJWs, (Like Renegade Cut's Little Shop of Horrors video) and they're often obsessed with wanting actions to have consequences, ya know like the Hindu concept of Karma.  And some fans of The Last Jedi think Kylo Ren is beyond redemption.

What they find offensive about specifically Evangelical Christianity is the notion that Belief is the sole or primary determining factor. That it might be possible for a believer to lose Salvation, but impossible for someone who never believed no matter how nice they were to avoid Hell.  And these Christians sadly think that idea is how to separate Biblical Hell from the Egyptian concept of Ammit.

My old Second Resurrection post wasn't directly about Universal Salvation at all, simply arguing that there may even be some Unbelievers who aren't cast into the Lake of Fire to start with.  But since then my views have shifted a bit on the Lake of Fire.  Now I like to stress how backsliden believers will have it worse on the day of Judgment then those who never Believed based on passages like Luke 12.

But what's really controversial is that I'm even contemplating the possibility that after death/resurrection punishment is only for Believers. Jesus paid the full price of Sin, which was death, but those who enter a covenant relationship with Him take on certain responsibilities in addition to the benefits of that decision.  I'm not willing to state this definitively yet, but I see reasons to suspect it could be the case.

Which opens the possibly that some Nazis won't qualify at all, we can debate Hitler himself endlessly but some Nazis certainly hated Christianity, and wanted people to think Hitler was with them on that hence the dubious quotes in Table Talk.  And nothing is more offensive to the Left right now then suggesting Nazis could get off scottfree.  Oh and pretty much none of Japan's war criminals were Christians.

But I suppose they'll still find that preferable to the typical Christian view that whether or not Hitler gets into Heaven the Six Million Jews he killed certainly won't.

Why include that rant in a post mainly about associating the mainstream doctrine of Hell with Egypt?  Because lots of Conservative Christians see Egypt in The Bible as often representing The World.  Hence why Chad Schafer's book is doing so well.  So I'm showing that endless torment and/or annihilation is the doctrine of the Egyptian World.

Luke 16:19-31, Lazarus and The Rich Man

The first thing that needs to be understood about this parable is it deals with Hades not Gehenna, so we know this condition can't be permanent because of Revelation 20.

I've spent some time in the past defaulting to the interpretation that this is a Parable and so not a real depiction of the contemporary after life at all, and I still think that's probable.  But I want to break it down some more.

In the KJV some form of the word "torment" occurs four times.  They are two different words in The Greek, neither is the best word for describing torture inflicted for no reason other then pain or punishment.  The word Torture actually comes from a Greek root.  Luke could have used words used of Jesus's scourging, or the words used by the "Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades" that's been variously attributed to both Josephus and Hippolytus of Rome.

Verses 23 and 28 use forms of Basanos.  Basanos was a Greek word for a Touch-Stone used for testing and refining Gold and other precious metals.  Forms of the word are also translated "travail" in Revelation 12:2 and "tossed" in Matthew 14:24.  An argument can be made that a good deal of the time it's used as a verb "tested" would be the best translation.  Basanos is also the basis for every use of "tormented" linked to the Lake of Fire in Revelation.  A form of Basanos is also the basis for "Tormentors" in Matthew 18:34 where Jesus explicitly described it as not indefinite.

Verses 24 and 25 use Odunao, a word not at all used of physical pain but of mental or psychological sorrow or anguish.  Like how it's used in Luke 2:48 or Acts 20:38.

The use of the word "flame" here is the rich man describing his Odunao.  So maybe it's an expression of how he feels and not literally saying he's on fire.

Now even leaving aside what we know elsewhere in Scripture about Hades fate in Revelation 20 or the Harrowing of Hell, there are a couple things in this parable on it's own that imply it won't be a permanent state.

One is the meaning of Basanos, Metals are tested with a Tocuh-Stone for a purpose, as already made clear above.

The other is Abraham's explanation to the Rich Man, The Rich Man is now experiencing what Lazarus did.  But if this state were permanent it at some point wouldn't be a just retribution anymore.

Some Christians oppose the Harrowing of Hell doctrine.

Which I consider very problematic given the amount of Scriptural support the Harrowing of Hell has.

I've been an enthusiastic supporter of InspiringPhilsophy's videos on the Was Jesus a Copycat Savior playlist in-spite of my many doctrinal disagreements with him.  But the recently added video about Inanna includes him flat out saying there is no Biblical support for Jesus descending into the underworld.  I shall address how Christians should respond to this being compared to ancient Pagan myths at the bottom of this post.

Their only argument against it is Jesus telling the Thief on The Cross next to him that "I tell you this day you will be with me in Paradise".

1. If you believe the Parable of Lazarus and The Rich Man is an accurate literal depiction of how the After Life works (or did before The Cross) and not just an illustration based on the Pharisees own false views, it clearly has a Paradise in/next to Hades, Abraham's Bosom.

2.  My main argument on this.  An analysis of the actual Greek text can support putting a comma after "I tell you this day" meaning "this day" is not necessarily the day it will happen.  Jesus' Crucifixion wasn't normal ( a fact skeptics point out) most Crucifixion victims took days to actually die.  And the evidence of Jesus dying sooner then expected is in the Gospels text itself, He died before the Romans even got to the leg breaking part.  So chances are the thief didn't even die the same day Jesus did, especially given how in the Hebrew reckoning there was only like 3 hours left when Jesus died.

3. InspiringPhilosophy is an Old Earth Creationist who will say "A day is like a thousand years" when it suits him.  After all Adam didn't literally die within 24 hours of eating the fruit did he?  Actually this and option 2 go well together.

Now to the clear Biblical Support.  If you haven't read it yet, you should read my break down of what "Hell" is Biblically.  Before the Cross Sheol/Hades is where all the dead went, including the righteous like Jacob and David.

Isaiah 24:21-22 foretells it.  Likewise with Zechariah 9:11.  Psalm 16:10 and 83:13 where David says "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.".  Psalm 139:8 might be relevant as well.

In Matthew 12:39-41 and Luke 11:29-32 Jesus says "as Jonah was in The Belly of the Whale so shall the Sun of Man be in the Hear(Core) of The Earth".  In Jonah 2:2 Jonah felt like he was in Sheol/Hell when he was in the Belly of the Whale leading some to speculate he technically died, but that's besides my point here.  Numbers 16:30-33 and Deuteronomy 32:22 confirm that the Core of The Earth is where Sheol is.

In Acts 2:27-31 Peter quotes the above mentioned Psalms in reference to the Resurrection of Jesus.  Peter also discuses this in his Epistle (traditionally numbered as his first) to Jewish Churches in Asia Minor.  In Chapter 3 verses 19-20, and later in Chapter 4 verse 6 specifically saying Jesus proclaimed the Evangelion (Gospel) to the dead.

Paul in Romans 10:7 says Christ was in the Deep (Abyss).  Paul also discuses Christ's Descent to the "lowest parts" in Philippians 2:9-10 and Ephesians 4:7-10.

So Paul alludes to it three times, Peter said it on more then one occasion, two Old Testament Prophets foretold it, two Davidic Palms foretold it and Jesus said it in a statement recorded in two Gospels.  Frankly it's affirmed more repeatedly and unambiguously then The Virgin Birth and yet the later is considered more heretical to neglect today.

It's also supported by understanding Easter as the fulfillment of Passover.  Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan as the Passover Lambs were being Slaughtered.  After that the Lambs were roasted, and then after being eaten any leftovers were required to be burned up before sunrise on the morning of the 15th of Nisan.  So if there is indeed a fiery part of Hades/Sheol, Jesus traveled through it during those hours.  And then during the daylight hours of the 15th He delivered the saints in Sheol exactly when Israel was delivered out of Egypt.  On the 16th of Nisan which was a weekly Sabbath he rested, and then on the 17th, the day Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged, Jesus Rose from The Dead at Sunrise.  Matthew 27:51-53 records that others arose from their graves sometime after Jesus did.  Maybe that was later on the 17th, or maybe it was the 21st the last day of Unleavened Bread.

Seeing Egypt as Sheol typologically here is backed up by how Joseph is a type of Christ in Genesis. He was presumed dead to his family and then spent time as both a slave and prisoner in Egypt.  Then much later his body was taken out of Egypt at the Exodus.

The Early Church Fathers did affirm the doctrine, including Tertulian who IP likes to cite as the best Pre-Nicene precedent for a Homusion understanding of The Trinity.  And the Eastern Orthodox Church still considers it important to this day.  But it's come to be neglected in the West, possibly partially because of how it lends credence to Universal Salvation.

When some Richard Carrier type starts comparing this to Pagan myths about heroes or gods traveling to the Underworld, our response should be that Christ was Totally Victorious (1 Corinthians 15:55 "Grave" in the KJV is Hades).  Orpheus and Izanagi failed to save their Brides from Hades/Yomi, but Jesus got everyone out of Sheol/Hades he intended to (he may have completely emptied it and those in Hades in Revelation 20 have been added since, either way it will one day be fully emptied).  Inanna/Ishtar had to leave her Husband Dumuzid/Tammuz behind in her place, Jesus did not add anyone to Sheol to replace who he took out.

Basically, the Pagan versions are Bad News reinforcing the inevitability and inescapablness of Death.  The Gospel is The Good News, that as in Adam all Die so in Christ all shall be Made Alive, 1 Corinthians 15:22 (Cross reference with Romans 5).

The Baptism of Fire

I'm going to start by quoting Luke 3:16-17 but the parallel in Matthew is chapter 3 verses 10 and 11.  In Mark it's 1:8 but that's a shortened version that leaves out the fire, likewise John 1:33, Acts 1:5 and 11:16.

John answered, saying unto them all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable."

I think a lot of what leads people to weird doctrines about Baptism being required for Salvation or for being truly part of The Bride is people forgetting that Water Baptism isn't the only Baptism.  The Church has long viewed the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as being what happened at Pentecost in Acts 2, when The Holy Spirit descended and gave everyone Tongs of Fire.  Therefore it's illogical to turn around and think the use of the word Baptized in that chapter can refer to water Baptism.

None of the verses that can be twisted to make it sound like maybe Baptism is necessary for Salvation can be proven to refer to Water Baptism, including Mark 16.

The post Pentecost Church kept practicing a Water Baptism like John's as a symbolic act, but that was never the true Baptism.

In Romans 6 Paul teaches that we are made Dead to Sin at Baptism because in Baptism we are in Jesus Death.  That this teaching can only be about the Baptism of Fire will become apparent from the full testimony of Scripture.

The word Baptism comes from a Greek word that means "to wash" or to immerse.  So the idea of Baptizing with Fire does seem weird.  You wash or immerse in a body of water like a river or a pool or a lake....lake.... If you cast someone into a Lake you are immersing or washing them in that lake... hmmmm.

The first time "Unquenchable Fire" is referenced in the New Testament it's John elaborating on the Baptism of The Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:11-12 and Luke 3:16-17.

Revelation 14:10 describes the Lake of Fire as being in God's presence.  The fire and brimstone that burns the damned emanates from God's presence in Isaiah 30:27-33 and II Thessalonians 1:8-9.  God Himself is called a consuming fire in Deuteronomy 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29.  Deuteronomy 32:22-24 and Ezekiel 20:47 also defined the fire of judgment as coming from God.  In Malachi 3 Yahuah says he will purify the sons of Levi with fire and purge them as gold and silver.  1 Corinthians 3:13-15 also refers to people being Saved even though their works were devoured by the fire.  Isaiah 30:33 says the Breath of God is like Brimstone/Sulfur, and the Hebrew word for "Breath" there is also a word for "Spirit".  And I think verses using the mysterious word Resheph are also relevant to this theme.

In Mark 9:49-50 Jesus says that Everyone will be salted with fire.

In Peter's first epistle in chapter 3 he compares the Flood of Noah to Baptism.  And then in chapter 3 of his second Epistle he compares the Flood of Noah to the coming consuming of the Earth by fire.

The most common view of the Second Death held by proponents of Universal Salvation is to call it the Death of Death, which works when you just quote Revelation 20:14 and back it up with 1 Corinthians 15:26 & 54-55, but that is neither the first or last usage of the term Second Death.  Revelation 21:8 defines it as being cast into the Lake of Fire, and 2:11 and 20:6 are clear it's something at least some of the not risen till after the Millennium will experience.

The Second Death is becoming Dead to Sin and the Law as Paul teaches in Romans 6-7, it's the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  It will be more pleasant to experience it now rather then later, but in neither case will it destroy the Image of God or be an indefinite punishment, God's punishments are for correction according to Hanukah 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11.

I've expressed this view on the Second Death once already but this is more in-depth.  I'm not sure to what extend this might require me to refine my view on The Second Resurrection.

When you choose to take a bath or a shower it can be a very pleasant and satisfying experience.  But when a child doesn't want to take a bath and chooses to stay dirty and the parent has to force them into it, that tends to be unpleasant for all parties involved, but it's something the parent does out of love for their child.

The two verses where John The Baptist refers to the Baptism of Fire are also adjacent to discussion of separating the Wheat from The Chaff.  Chaff you need to understand is not a separate plant., it's the part of the Wheat that is not eatable.  The Chaff represents Sin not Sinners.

1 Corinthians 15:26 clearly says the Last Enemy destroyed is Death.  Therefore in Revelation 20 nothing that happens after Death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire can be defined as enemies being destroyed.  And even before then the Enemies are "destroyed" by being made not enemies anymore.

Update November 2024: In this post I study the Greek word translated Lake.

https://materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/2024/11/limne-refers-to-body-of-water.html

Lex Meyer's book Immortal advocates for Soul Sleep and Annihilationism

I've watched his two part interview with Rob Skiba on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-ufMPwt_Co
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c37lN0yDtc

I agree in the sense that contemporary Heaven is not what we are looking forward to.  And while I disagree with Soul Sleep, rejecting The Resurrection or arguing it is not a literal Bodily Resurrection is far worse of a false doctrine. And I agree with him that being Born Again refers to the Resurrection.  And I can agree with him on where to put the comma when Jesus says to the thief on the Cross "I tell you this day, you shall be with me in Paradise".

Much of what he says is stuff I already addressed in The Soul and Spirit Biblically.  And I will be doing a separate post on the Prophecy Blog about what he has to say regarding Enoch and Elijah.  But that spins off from what I've already argued regarding them.  And I agree with him over Rob Skiba about The Book of Enoch and Jasher being bad sources.

I can also agree with his take on the Witch of Endor and Samuel, in fact he convinced me of that, it does go against how I've mentioned it before.  And I agree on the Rich Man and Lazursus of Luke 16 being a Parable and not something to build doctrine on.  And his take on the point of what Jesus said to the Sadducees in Matthew 22 is also valid.

And I agree there is no pre-existence, the Soul is created when The Body is given Life at first Breath.

But he doesn't address the references to Sheol/Hades in 1 Peter 3 and 4, or Ezekiel 32, or other passages considered relevant to the Harrowing of Hell.  Zechariah 9 also refers to souls in prison.  And verses in the Torah that refer to Abraham joining his father when he died, and Moses joining Aaron, though they were buried far apart.  And Jesus promises His believers they would Never Die in John 11:26.

Meanwhile it is dangerous to build doctrine on Ecclesiastes, that book is partly Solomon describing things how they seem to mortal eyes, to proclaim all that wrong at the end.  Christians absolutely do believe in something New under the Sun, the New Testament.

My biggest issue is his writing off the Matthew 27:52-53 Resurrections as temporary Resurrections like Lazarus.  I believe firmly this verse is tied directly to Daniel 12, the only other time the Resurrection is refereed to where Many rather then All are raised.  This ties in directly to the Harrowing of Hell, Jesus lead the Dead out of Sheol on the 15th of Nisan, same day Moses lead Israel out of Egypt.

He's a Post-Tribber, so he unlike me thinks Revelation is not Chronological.  The "First Resurrection" is a classification rather then a chronological sequence.  People already Resurrected followed Jesus in Revelation 19.

Also he responds to using that the Beast and False Prophet were still there 1000 years later against Annihilationism by saying they were Angelic beings not Humans.  That happens to be another major annoyance of mine, whenever someone for whatever agenda tries to deny the Humanity of The Beast.  Revelation 13 at the end clearly calls him a Man, and the word for Man used is Anthropos.  As I've laid out elsewhere, Anthropos means Human, it never means male gender, and Angels probably wouldn't have Genders anyway.  If it was in Hebrew the word used here would probably have been Adam or maybe Enosh, but not Zakar or Ish.

The argument for him being not a Human comes down to him ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and from that arguing he is Apollyon of Revelation 9, who is called an Angel.  The word Angel is used to describe humans sometimes, in fact the same form of it used of Apollyon Jesus used of John The Baptist.  IF Apollyon is the same entity as one of the Beasts, then he was a Human sent there at some point.  Maybe Judas Iscariot who went to "his own place".

In fact twice Angels in Revelation clearly identify themselves as having once been normal Humans.  That I consider further proof some OT saints are already Resurrected.  The Angels of the Seven Churches in Revelation 1-3 I think are believers in those congregations who held the office of Prophet.  And the Angels with the Seven Trumpets I've heard argued are seven OT Prophets who foretold corresponding Prophecies.  I think that's interesting.

Meyer makes an argument similar to Universalists, questioning how the New Creation can be so Happy if people are being tormented forever.  But he thinks Annihilationism is sufficiently more merciful.  But here is my question, why bother Resurrecting the Un-Beleivers only to immediately kill them?  That seems unduly cruel to me.  Where Meyer slips on the Importance of the Resurrection is that it's only our Sin being paid for by Jesus Shed Blood that allows the Resurrection to be possible at all.  If you're Resurrected you have been Saved, and since everyone gets Resurrected......

I also agree that Plato is the source of much bad doctrine.  But my problems with Plato are more in how he broke with the usual views of the Pagan Greeks before him.  The Pagan Greek view of the After Life was no more or less wrong then what the Pagan Canaanites believed which it was pretty much based on.  And The Hebrew Bible condemns a lot about the Pagan Canaanites but never the gist of their view of the after life.  The issue is they were the opposite of Universalism, they believed in no hope of escape from Sheol/Hades for anyone.

Also the assumed After Life view of casual Christianity which I find just as annoying as he does, comes from Zoroastrianism rather then Gnosticism.  If any Gnostics believed an After Life view similar to the Zoroastrians it was maybe the Persia based Manicheans who Augustine came out of.  But generally the Gnostics believed all Souls were part of one original Soul that they seek to return to.  Sometimes it's Sophia as The World Soul, sometimes it's the Pleroma.  We see a similar idea expressed in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith, when Yoda says that the dead become one with The Force, and the closing Yoda arch episodes of Clone Wars elaborated on that concept.  We also see this when some modern New Age type people say so and so "merges with the Infinite" when they die.

And this is another aspect of Gnosticism that can be traced back to Ancient Egypt.  Everything in existence was said to be one of the Ka of Atum the creator god, who originally contained all things within himself, according to Wilkinson, Richard H. (2003). The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson. p. 99

We also see in Acts 23:8-9 that the Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection, they also denied the existence of Spirits and Angels.  From what can learn outside The Bible they also seem to have believed in an ancient form of Deism, a belief that a Creator God exists but that he is uninterested in interfering in Human affairs.  Deism seems to have arguably began with Aristotle and his Unmoved Mover idea.  And Aristotle also rejected Plato's doctrine of an immortal Soul.  So denying the immortal Soul also comes from Greek philosophy.

The Soul and Spirit Biblically

1 Thessalonians 5:23 "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

These verses tell us they are different things.  Some word studies of the words have lead people to conclude that animals have souls but not spirits.  I haven't gone too deep into that yet.  If that is true though, it would probably mean that Biblically speaking every use of the word "Soul" in the Buffyverse should be Spirit.

The doctrines of Soul Sleep and Annihilation often go together.  I've seen people argue "Soul" just means a living thing and the idea of an immortal Soul with Conciseness when separated from the Body isn't Biblical.

Often this view is built using verses from Ecclesiastes, that book is not for building doctrine, it is mostly describing how things appear to be to Man's perspective in order to refute all that at the end.

Now I believe the Belief in a literal Bodily Resurrection is vital.  Some have suggested that "what is the point of the Resurrection if the Soul and Spirit are immortal and aware?"  My answer is, because you lack something vital when separated from the Body.

Demons are spirits that lack a body, and they are desperately trying to steal one.  I used to believe they were the disembodied spirits of Angel-Human hybrids who died in the Flood.  But I no longer believe in Angel-Human hybrids.[[I've changed my mind on that even more since.]]

People often argue we see Angels have physical Bodies in a sense so Demons can't be fallen Angels.  But Jude 1:6 tells us the Genesis 6 angels gave up their Oketerion.  I believe that means they lost their Angelic bodies and become evil spirits/demons.  The only reason for assuming the ones imprisoned in the Abyss were imprisoned there before The Flood is the apocryphal First Enoch.  I now believe they were chained there by Jesus in Nisan of 30 AD, Paul tells us the Abyss was one of the places Jesus went, Romans 10:7 and Ephesians 4:7-10.  And more demons get added when we do proper Spiritual Warfare.

While I agree the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16 is a parable we shouldn't build doctrine on.  Ezekiel 32 clearly describes those dwelling in Sheol as having conciseness.  1 Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6 says Jesus preached the Gospel to the Spirits in Hades when he descended there between his Death and Resurrection (also implied in Philippians 2:9-11).  And Revelation 6 tells us when the 5th Seal is opened that the Souls of the Martyrs are under the Altar in Heaven and very aware.  Revelation 7 further describes these Souls in Heaven pre-Resurrection, the Resurrection/Rapture doesn't happen till the 7th Trumpet is sounded.

Jesus promised us that we will NEVER die, John 11:26.

So the Doctrine of Soul Sleep isn't supportable.

Anihaliationism is refuted by that we see The Beast and False Prophet clearly described as still being in the Lake of Fire over 1000 years later.

Update October 2024: I have since I wrote this changed my mind on Soul Sleep.

Hades, Gehenna and the Lake of Fire

I want to start by stating that the typical casual understanding of the "Christian" Afterlife is not based on The Bible at all but on Zoroastrianism, which influenced Manicheans like Augustine.

That some preachers continue to play ignorant of how Revelation even in English clearly depicts Hell and the Lake of Fire as distinct really annoys me, but there is no helping them.

The worth discussing issue is of Hades and Gehenna.

A total of three Greek words are translated "Hell" in the KJV translation of the New Testament.  Tartaros is a word used only once in 2 Peter so not worth much of an in-depth discussion here.

Hades is the word that is clearly the synonym for the Hebrew Bible's Sheol (every OT usage of Hell is Sheol, but it also gets translated Grave and Pit, which also have other Hebrew words).

It's also the only of the three words used in Revelation.  Paul also used the word in 1 Corinthians 15:55 once where the KJV renders it Grave rather then Hell.

So on a practical level what Hades refers to is the least disputable.

Etymology wise it is the most justifiable one to translate Hell as the origin of Hell is the equivalent concept from Germanic/Norse languages and mythologies.  (Sheol, Hades and Hell were also used by the Pagans of their respective languages to refer to an Underworld abode of the Dead that has a god and/or goddess ruling over it that was sometimes called by that same name.)  Hel and Hella are alternate forms of the original Norse name.

But in terms of what your typical Preacher means by Hell in modern America, The Lake of Fire is clearly what they mean, and their understanding even of that concept is of disputable accuracy.

The third word is Gehenna.  Gehenna is never by the KJV at least translated anything other then Hell.  It is used 12 times, 11 of them are in the Synoptic Gospels and the only remaining one is in James Epistle.

I have for a long time and mainly still do view Gehenna as referring to the same thing as the Lake of Fire, but I'll get more into that later.

Many radical KJV onliers continue to insist Gehenna and Hades must be the same thing if the KJV used the same term for both.  Though frankly I suspect the Latin translations of The Bible are the origin of both being translated the same way, the Vulgate doesn't use an expected Latin equivalent of Hades like Orcus, but rather Inferus, related to a word for fire.

Revelation 20 makes clear Hades is emptied and then thrown into the Lake of Fire before the New Heaven and New Earth are created and New Jerusalem descends.

The only passage using Gehenna that seems to be quoting or paraphrasing an Old Testament passage is Mark 9:43-48 which is drawing on Isaiah 66:24.  Isaiah 66 is still the same Prophecy as 65, which is clearly what Revelation 21 is drawing on, so this is contemporary with when the New Heaven and New Earth will be created.  So it can't be describing Hades (Also Sheol is not used in the verse) but could fit the Lake of Fire.

Now many who have no trouble with Gehenna and Hades referring to different things may still desire to see the Lake of Fire as distinct from either.  But the timing of Isaiah 66:24, as well the affiliation of Fire with Gehenna (at least one Gehenna passage also uses a Greek word for Fire, the verses in Matthew referring to the "Hell Fire"), as well as Gehenna being linked to the word "Damnation" all tell me Gehenna is probably the Lake of Fire.

Luke 16's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is the only passage linking Torment or a Flame to Hell where Hades rather then Gehenna is used.

Deuteronomy 32:22 is the only passage linking fire to Sheol.  KJV onliers will often call this the first reference to "Hell" in The Bible since Sheol's appearances in Genesis are all translated Grave in the KJV.  But this verse does not attribute this Fire to tormenting the currently dead but does possibly connect it to future Judgment.  The only difference between Sheol and NT Hades is Sheol might be a broader term that includes more of the depths of the Earth then just where the dead is/was.  And thus may include Tartaros/The Abyss.  And also could include the very center of The Earth, which modern Scientists believe is hotter then the surface of the Sun.

But more importantly, this verse of Deuteronomy says God is the source of the Fire, that it comes from Him and consumed the whole Earth Burning it's way down to the lowest Sheol. So this is really a Prophecy of the Great Conflagration of 2 Peter 3:7-12.

Ezekiel 32 describes Sheol, it describes the Dead being there, seems to imply they are awake there and thus contradicting the Soul Sleep view.  But no references to torment or torture or burning.

So since Luke 16 is the only basis for Hades being a place of torture or burning torment with no second witness, you can't build doctrine on it.

The arguments against it being a Parable I find unconvincing.  The main one is an assumption that Parables don't name names, however many view Job as a parable, also Lazarus has been viewed as a nickname and not a proper name.

What is possible is that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man was Jesus using the Pharisees own beliefs rhetorically against them, and not exactly meant to tell us the true nature of the After Life.

Gehenna is also the name of a real location outside Jerusalem.  The place known in the Hebrew Scriptures as the valley of Hinnom, a place often linked to Child Sacrifice and burnt offerings to Molech.  I've also seen it claimed that in Jesus time it was basically a garbage dump where garbage was burned.

Some think using that name for the place of Aionos punishment is merely a figurative or symbolic analogy.  Others see this clear earthly location being linked as an argument against it being the Lake of Fire.  I think it's possible where ever the Lake of Fire currently is cosmologically/spiritually, it will at the White Throne Judgment be opened in the valley of Hinnom.

I think the possibility of Jeremiah 7:31-32 and 19:6 corresponding to Isaiah 66:24 would make a lot of sense.

Jesus talked about Hell more then Heaven???

This is a claim often made by Hellfire preachers.  One that has me thinking there must be a Fifth Gospel I'm not familiar with.  I've never seen them give a mathematical breakdown of how that claim is accurate.

Part of the problem here may of course come from people forgetting contemporary Heaven is NOT the paradise we're looking forward to, we're looking forward to the New Heaven and New Earth.

Jesus talked about the Kingdom constantly, it's in mind in almost every speech He gave, including the ones about Hell.  He definitely talked about it way more then Hell, even if we include the Outer Darkness references that I disagree with interpreting as about Hell.

Now a simple word search can be misleading.  But still the three different words translated Hell appear in only 24 verses of the entire New Testament.  15 verses in the KJV use some word form of Damn, and only 7 refer to "weeping and gnashing of teeth", among those 7 are every reference to "outer darkness".  And only 5 verses mention the Lake of Fire.  Again that's the entire New Testament.  Also Perdition appears in the KJV only 8 times and only one of those is by Jesus being a unique statement about Judas.

Heaven appears 141 times in the Four Gospels alone.  Kingdom appears 121 times in the Four Gospels alone.  Among those are 32 verses in Matthew's gospel that use Kingdom of Heaven.

Some people like to say everything you need to know to be saved is in John's Gospel.  That seems to be based on some of what's said at the end.  I know the Pastor I do not like to name uses this argument against saying repentance is necessary for Salvation, he is one of the vilest of all Hellfire preachers.  However the word Hell is never used in John's Gospel.  But there are three verses in John where Jesus talks about His Kingdom, 3:3-5 and 18:36.  And Heaven appears 17 times.  The couple times Jesus says negative things about Judas are dwarfed by His promises to the other disciples.

Protestants and Evangelicals like Chuck Missler love to call Romans the definitive statement of Christian Doctrine.  But Hell isn't mentioned in Romans.  In fact the only time any of the three words translated Hell is ever uttered by Paul (in his Epistles or speeches recorded in Acts) is in 1 Corinthians 15:55, which is also the only time any of the three words in question is NOT translated Hell by the KJV, because I suspect the organized Anglican Church didn't like this being part of the Hell doctrine.  So it's instead translated Grave.  But it's not majorly distinct from other uses of Hades in the Greek, in fact the specific spelling is identical to the parable in Luke 16.

"O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?"

The opposite of trying to tell us to be afraid of it.