Why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving

[Gilrandir]

Hell is described as dark with flames Matthew 8.12, fire if literal would cancel each other out.

What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.
It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.
'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! '
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.
'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. 'Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. 'What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'

The dark figure streaming with fire raced towards them. The orcs yelled and poured over the stone gangways. Then Boromir raised his horn and blew. Loud the challenge rang and bellowed, like the shout of many throats under the cavernous roof. For a moment the orcs quailed and the fiery shadow halted. Then the echoes died as suddenly as a flame blown out by a dark wind, and the enemy advanced again.
'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!' Aragorn and Boromir did not heed the command, but still held their ground, side by side, behind Gandalf at the far end of the bridge. The others halted just within the doorway at the hall's end, and turned, unable to leave their leader to face the enemy alone.
The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils.

Fire is a picture of judgment, in Deuteronomy 9 and other places, it says God goes before Israel as a consuming fire, it means judgment. He judges Canaan, yet never burns them or cause fire. The fire of his judgment was not literal fire, but his judgment.

An arbitrary assumption. I might as well claim the opposite.

But to add onto that, god allows things to happen even though he knows the future.

So he knew what would happen to Adam and Eve? He knew that his creation would go wrong? If those things were meant to be, it means that it was God's will. So it wasn't Adam's rebellion or sin, it was fulfilment of God's will and designs.

[rory_20_uk]

The entirety of the Old Testament there was no Hell. And when the New Testament starts where things are on one level much more level all about love and forgiveness Hell appears. Right about the same time the texts stop being written by Jews and are written by Greeks and Romans. What a coincidence.

I know of no one who has died and returned to tell us what happened and has documented this. Until then who knows?

[total relism]

The entirety of the Old Testament there was no Hell. And when the New Testament starts where things are on one level much more level all about love and forgiveness Hell appears. Right about the same time the texts stop being written by Jews and are written by Greeks and Romans. What a coincidence.

I know of no one who has died and returned to tell us what happened and has documented this. Until then who knows?

The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.
-Proverbs 15.24

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
-Daniel 12-2,3

Her house is the way to Sheol,
going down to the chambers of death
Proverbs 7.27

“And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
Isiah 66.24

But your dead will live, Lord;
their bodies will rise—
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy—
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead.
Go, my people, enter your rooms
and shut the doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until his wrath has passed by.
See, the Lord is coming out of his dwelling
to punish the people of the earth for their sins.
The earth will disclose the blood shed on it;
the earth will conceal its slain no longer.
Isiah 26 19-21


“I will deliver this people from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
Where, O grave, is your destruction?
Hosea 13.14

Your dead shall live, their corpses[a] shall rise.
O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a radiant dew,
and the earth will give birth to those long dead.
Isiah 26.19

also see 1 Samuel 28 12-14 psalm 17.15 Isiah 25 8-9 Ezekiel 37 11-13 job 19.26 to name some of them a few more beneath.



You claimed above that the NT was written by greeks and romans. I will ask you support such a claim when my thread on the translation of the bible is done.



Jesus indeed died and returned.


I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
Rev 1.18

or this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
-Romans 14.9

[rory_20_uk]

The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.
-Proverbs 15.24

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
-Daniel 12-2,3

Her house is the way to Sheol,
going down to the chambers of death
Proverbs 7.27

“And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
Isiah 66.24

But your dead will live, Lord;
their bodies will rise—
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy—
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead.
Go, my people, enter your rooms
and shut the doors behind you;
hide yourselves for a little while
until his wrath has passed by.
See, the Lord is coming out of his dwelling
to punish the people of the earth for their sins.
The earth will disclose the blood shed on it;
the earth will conceal its slain no longer.
Isiah 26 19-21


“I will deliver this people from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
Where, O grave, is your destruction?
Hosea 13.14

Your dead shall live, their corpses[a] shall rise.
O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a radiant dew,
and the earth will give birth to those long dead.
Isiah 26.19

also see 1 Samuel 28 12-14 psalm 17.15 Isiah 25 8-9 Ezekiel 37 11-13 job 19.26 to name some of them a few more beneath.



You claimed above that the NT was written by greeks and romans. I will ask you support such a claim when my thread on the translation of the bible is done.

Jesus indeed died and returned.


I was dead, and behold, I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.
Rev 1.18

or this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.
-Romans 14.9

Proverbs I grant you. None of the others refer to hell. They all refer to rising - none leaving the earth.

You ask me to demonstrate that letters sent from Rome and the surrounding areas and with entire Gospels written in Greek that these were written by Greeks or Romans and yet are quite happy to provide a quote as "proof". Just because I say I'm dead and have arisen doesn't make it true.

Believe what you want - that's fine. But when you try to make beliefs somehow evidenced-based it all rather falls down.

[total relism]

Proverbs I grant you. None of the others refer to hell. They all refer to rising - none leaving the earth.

You ask me to demonstrate that letters sent from Rome and the surrounding areas and with entire Gospels written in Greek that these were written by Greeks or Romans and yet are quite happy to provide a quote as "proof". Just because I say I'm dead and have arisen doesn't make it true.

Believe what you want - that's fine. But when you try to make beliefs somehow evidenced-based it all rather falls down.

sheol is the place of the dead, hell is an eternal place where nobody in the OT times is or was, not until the final judgment. Daniel clearly makes a distinction of two separate eternal places, one to "everlasting contempt" [hell] one to everlasting life [haven]. Isiah describes a place of

"For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

does this not seem hell? those other passages that speak of rising, no more death and a world with god, means those who do not go to this place [haven] go to everlasting contempt etc hell. Let me add another verse. Also see below

“Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”
Isiah 14.15



So back to your question, why is Hell mentioned so much more in the N.T. than the O.T.? Well, first of all it should be noted that in older versions (KJV, Geneva, and Douay-Rheims) the word "hell" appears 31 times in the O.T. and only 23 times in the N.T. In all 31 O.T. instances, the Hebrew word is "Sheol" and this word has a couple of different meanings. It can mean simply "the grave" or "the tomb in the earth where a body is laid after death". It can also refer to the two separate places where the righteous and the wicked went after death. There are also other times in Hebrew where the term Sheol is not used, but the concept of a destination place for the dead souls of mankind is clearly implied or directly stated. In the newer English translation, the majority of times Sheol is just transliterated into English as Sheol, although "hell" is kept in many places (19 of the 31 times in the NKJV) but zero times in almost all other English translations (ESV, NIV, NAS)

Psalm 63:9 and Ezekiel 32:24 both seem to imply that Hell (Sheol in Hebrew) is in the lower parts of the earth. Sheol in O.T. theology had two components; the grave for the righteous (called Abraham's bosom in Luke 16) and a place of conscious torment for the wicked, the Pit (usually shachath or bowr in Hebrew) which seems to be where the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was. The N.T. contains one reference to the lower parts of the earth in Eph. 4:9, which is often viewed as relating to Sheol, specifically Abraham's bosom. Other references to the Abyss or the Bottomless Pit also seem to indicate a physical opening at the earth's surface to a physical location in the interior of the earth. It must be pointed out however, that in each of these cases where the lower parts of the earth, the Abyss or the Bottomless Pit are mentioned, the genre is either parable, poetic or prophetic, not historical narrative, and the verses do have symbols and/or symbolic language (with the exception of Eph. 4:9 but this passage has been hotly debated among theologians in any event).

However, in Luke 16, Abraham says to the rich man that there is a great gulf (Mega-chasm would be the transliteration) between Abraham's bosom and Sheol/Hades. The rich man looked up and saw Abraham, which seems to make an earthly hades unlikely. (Would there really be an upper Hades for the good and lower Hades for the wicked, and if so, how could the rich man see Abraham through miles of rock)? We must also remember that in this parable, Christ had not yet died and resurrected, and therefore the physical bodies of Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man were still in the ground. We look forward to a physical and spiritual resurrection when we die, because of what Christ accomplished (1 Cor. 15:20-23), even the limited understanding of resurrection by O.T. saints and first century Jews reveals that they understood the body would not be raised until the time of the end (Dan. 12:2 and John 11:24).

But to the crux of your question, even though Sheol is mention more than hell (O.T. vs. N.T.) the concept of an eternal place of torment for the wicked is mentioned more in the N.T. Why is this? One could claim that it is just a matter of progressive revelation. {For example the concept of the Church is termed a mystery in the N.T. meaning it was not revealed until then. It was unknown even in principle in the O.T. If a person wanted to "know the Lord" in O.T. times he had to proselytize to Judaism, and place himself under the Law. Of course we know that the just shall live by their faith (Hab. 2:4) and that O.T. saints were not justified by the Law, but the Law did point out their sinfulness and their need for a Savior. But even Christ said in His Day that at that time in history "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).} In some degree this is correct. Since the O.T. saints had to look forward to Christ with only 39 books of Scripture, and we as Christians have the privilege of looking back at Christ and having 66 books of Scripture, one could say we have a greater degree of Truth given to us. This ties in with heaven, hell, resurrection, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, immortal bodies, etc. So of course we have had more revealed to us, and it makes sense that if Christ and His Apostles tell us much about heaven, how our new bodies will be, how God will finally judge the world at the end of the age, he would have to also give us more detail on the "flip side of the coin".

We are told much more in the N.T. about demons, demonic activity, Satan's purposes with human government (in Matthew especially), and of course where all these wicked beings and the wicked humans will go after the consummation occurs (especially in 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Pet. Jude and Revelation). Of course we are given hints of these things in Daniel, (and we actually have greater detail about "end times" human battles and governments in the O.T. prophets) and a few of the minor prophets, but since the concept of hell is tied into resurrection of the dead, and this concept is much more fully examined in light of Christ's Resurrection and subsequent judgment of the world at the consummation, of necessity the concept of hell is going to get more treatment in the N.T.

But on top of just the fact of progressive revelation, one other reason that hell is mentioned in the N.T. more than the O.T. is that the events are closer to consummation, and many theologians think that our concept of Hell (especially as outlined by Jesus in the Gospels) is really a description of the Lake of Fire (see for example, Matt. 18:8 and Mark 9:43-48). Since the Lake of Fire is currently not in use (and will not be so until the events of Rev. 19:20 and 20:10-15) and won't be fully utilized until the Great White Throne judgment, and since the Lake of Fire is not mentioned until Rev. 19:20, there was no need to get into the concept of the differentiation of the two in O.T. times, or even in early Apostolic times. Remember also that until the time of Christ's resurrection (contrast the parable in Luke 16 to 2 Cor. 5:8) the condition of an Abraham's Bosom Sheol for the righteous and a Sheol (in Luke 16:23 linked with Hades in the N.T.) for the wicked was in place, but now when a Christian dies, he is present with the Lord in heaven. Therefore something had to have changed between O.T. times and the resurrection of Christ, in regards to where righteous souls went after death. When you read through the O.T., there is a concept of being with God after death (Job 19:25-26, Psalm 16:9-11), but as stated earlier, it appears that this concept was thought to occur at the time of the end or the end of the age. Before then, it seems to appear that O.T. saints thought that they would just sleep until the final resurrection of the just in death (2 Sam. 7:12, 2 Kings 20:21, Job 14:10-12, Ps 6:5 30:9 88:10,11 and Isa. 38:17-19), or if they thought of an afterlife, it was one of being with family and (maybe?) God (Gen. 15:15, 49:29, Psa. 16:11 if viewed in this light, Psa. 17:15). Therefore since we are not looking forward to a promise, but backwards to a Savior, and since we know that Savior will also judge the world and that those not written in His book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire (along with Hades and death), whereas the O.T. saints did not know this, or knew only dimly and in part, we can expect there to be a fuller revelation of what these things are, both heaven and hell in the N.T..





I am surprised you have claimed to base your beliefs on evidence, when you cannot provide evidence to suport your claim the NT was written by greeks and romans [of course some were roman citizens like paul] . I do not believe jesus died and came back simply because the bible says so. However that is for a future thread. I will ask if you have anything to say about the op's topic of How Could God Send Those he Loves to Hell?, I would love to discus them.

[Fragony]

There is no evidence that parts of the NT were Roman propaganda, some historians suspect it.

[rory_20_uk]

Total realism, I never claimed to base my beliefs on evidence. To do so and to think others do is, well, moronic. A belief is something that is not bound by evidence. You appear to neither have the manners to ask nor the wit to infer that I am Agnostic

I am happy to critique the body of "evidence" - perhaps have a discussion on the canonical process, the politics that went on and so forth and the reasons that these decisions were made to fit the needs of the geopolitical reality and hence the hangover of these vestiges to today.

There is no evidence that parts of the NT were Roman propaganda, some historians suspect it.

There is precious evidence for most of it. Interpreting any text that has gone so many edits to the point where large parts of the original texts are only known from senior church officials at the time declaring them heretical is nonsensical. Of course, discussing the reasons for the creation of the versions that were created it itself has value.

[total relism]

What it was could not be seen: it was like a great shadow, in the middle of which was a dark form, of man-shape maybe, yet greater; and a power and terror seemed to be in it and to go before it.
It came to the edge of the fire and the light faded as if a cloud had bent over it. Then with a rush it leaped across the fissure. The flames roared up to greet it, and wreathed about it; and a black smoke swirled in the air. Its streaming mane kindled, and blazed behind it. In its right hand was a blade like a stabbing tongue of fire; in its left it held a whip of many thongs.
'Ai! ai!' wailed Legolas. 'A Balrog! A Balrog is come! '
Gimli stared with wide eyes. 'Durin's Bane!' he cried, and letting his axe fall he covered his face.
'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. 'Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. 'What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'

The dark figure streaming with fire raced towards them. The orcs yelled and poured over the stone gangways. Then Boromir raised his horn and blew. Loud the challenge rang and bellowed, like the shout of many throats under the cavernous roof. For a moment the orcs quailed and the fiery shadow halted. Then the echoes died as suddenly as a flame blown out by a dark wind, and the enemy advanced again.
'Over the bridge!' cried Gandalf, recalling his strength. 'Fly! This is a foe beyond any of you. I must hold the narrow way. Fly!' Aragorn and Boromir did not heed the command, but still held their ground, side by side, behind Gandalf at the far end of the bridge. The others halted just within the doorway at the hall's end, and turned, unable to leave their leader to face the enemy alone.
The Balrog reached the bridge. Gandalf stood in the middle of the span, leaning on the staff in his left hand, but in his other hand Glamdring gleamed, cold and white. His enemy halted again, facing him, and the shadow about it reached out like two vast wings. It raised the whip, and the thongs whined and cracked. Fire came from its nostrils.

Great stuff, I love Tolkien. I thought you were a fan as well given your name. Here is a short bio i wrote of him

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...f-Middle-Earth


Are you on any Tolkien forums? what have you read of tolkien?

An arbitrary assumption. I might as well claim the opposite.

But how could you support a literal fire in this case?

So he knew what would happen to Adam and Eve? He knew that his creation would go wrong? If those things were meant to be, it means that it was God's will. So it wasn't Adam's rebellion or sin, it was fulfilment of God's will and designs.

Yes he knew what would happen. No it was not his intention or will. He willed a creation with free will to chose to follow him and not to sin.

[Gilrandir]

Are you on any Tolkien forums?

No.

what have you read of tolkien?

Almost all there is to read. My PhD thesis was based on analysis of his Legendarium.

But how could you support a literal fire in this case?

I can't. But I equally can't see any proofs it is otherwise. So since one can't prove the use of metaphor, one must abide by the literal meaning of the word used.

Yes he knew what would happen. No it was not his intention or will. He willed a creation with free will to chose to follow him and not to sin.

Yet he knew Adam would sin. He was meant to sin. It was his "function" in the paradise. If he was meant to, he wasn't to blame. Just like Judas - his "function" was to betray Jesus. Without Judas there would have been no resurrection. Thus both can't be blamed for what they have done. Hence turning Adam out was senseless and heartless.

[total relism]

No.



Almost all there is to read. My PhD thesis was based on analysis of his Legendarium.




I can't. But I equally can't see any proofs it is otherwise. So since one can't prove the use of metaphor, one must abide by the literal meaning of the word used.





Yet he knew Adam would sin. He was meant to sin. It was his "function" in the paradise. If he was meant to, he wasn't to blame. Just like Judas - his "function" was to betray Jesus. Without Judas there would have been no resurrection. Thus both can't be blamed for what they have done. Hence turning Adam out was senseless and heartless.

That is to bad. Their are some good ones if your interested.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php
http://newboards.theonering.net/foru...erl/gforum.cgi
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/index.php?



Holy crap that is great. I have read more of him as a person as i wanted to get to know the mind that created middle earth. But I am now getting into the lore aspects of it. I will be starting the histories of ME next. I would love to talk with you on some of this stuff. In fact I am going to make a thread on a subject on this forum and would love your expert evaluation of it. I will post it.

Does the Silmarillion Contradict Third age History?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053775601
In Search of Lore Accurate Size of a Mumakil
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...e-of-a-Mumakil



I just think the passage is clear they were not literally burnt. Seems to indicate non literal fire. Or at least one that does not consume physical bodies.


Both judas and adam were guilty and rebelled against god. Adam was never meant to sin, he was meant to live eternally in relationship with god. His proper function was to follow god and be a steward of earth, eat good food and have sex. His own free will caused the fall. God chose a world with free will and thus accepted the future fall of man. Judas worked on his own choice as well. God uses the bad choices of mankind to do his work yes, but they disobey on their own. A great example is jospeh in egypt. His brothers did evil and sold him into slavery, but god used that for good. But god does not approve of what they did.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.
-Gen 50.20

[Gilrandir]

That is to bad. Their are some good ones if your interested.

http://www.thetolkienforum.com/index.php
http://newboards.theonering.net/foru...erl/gforum.cgi
http://forum.barrowdowns.com/index.php?

Both judas and adam were guilty and rebelled against god. Adam was never meant to sin, he was meant to live eternally in relationship with god. His proper function was to follow god and be a steward of earth, eat good food and have sex. His own free will caused the fall. God chose a world with free will and thus accepted the future fall of man. Judas worked on his own choice as well. God uses the bad choices of mankind to do his work yes, but they disobey on their own. A great example is jospeh in egypt. His brothers did evil and sold him into slavery, but god used that for good. But god does not approve of what they did.

As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people[a] should be kept alive, as they are today.
-Gen 50.20

You may be right about Adam. But not about Judas. If it hadn't been for him there would never have been God's son sacrificing himself, nor resurrection, nor Easter and other things which are the foundations of Christianity.

[total relism]

You may be right about Adam. But not about Judas. If it hadn't been for him there would never have been God's son sacrificing himself, nor resurrection, nor Easter and other things which are the foundations of Christianity.

I think god would have accomplished his plan using whoever he could. I dont think judas is central. their was enough people that wanted jesus dead, judas just gets to much credit imo.

[Gilrandir]

I think god would have accomplished his plan using whoever he could. I dont think judas is central. their was enough people that wanted jesus dead, judas just gets to much credit imo.

Yet it was Judas who was chosen. So there is np use denouncing him for what he was appointed.