I find annihilationism a more palatable option. I hope you are right, though I am, as of yet, unconvinced.

Specifically I agree with this:

I see that it is possible that the destruction of death and Hades in Rev 20 is a possible description of annihilation (which would be “eternal punishment”, as it is a permanent state).

Chris: what are your beliefs as it pertains to hell?

I think this point has some truth:

When Hellenistic Jewish scribes rendered the Bible into Greek, they used the word Hades to translate Sheol, bringing a whole new mythological association to the idea of posthumous existence.

Actually, I would suggest that while the use of Hades to translate Sheol did bring in some mythological associations from the Greeks, the underlying Hebrew “mythology” is far more an undercurrent that modern Christians miss because we’ve never read the aprocyphal books that were commonly understood in the first century as addressing aspects of the afterlife: 1 Enoch (which is quoted in the Book of Jude), 2 Enoch (which is referenced by Paul in 2 Cor 12) and Jubilees (which is possibly referenced in Rev 20).

Neither Jesus nor Paul undermine what was commonly believed from these books (and Jesus, by siding with Hillel on the question of “is there a physical resurrection” is also giving a ruling in favor of the teaching from Enoch 1, which was rejected by Shammai and the Sadducees), with both Jude and Paul quoting directly from them and Jesus and John both giving a likely passing reference or support to them.

What do I believe about “hell”?

First, you will notice that the Hebrew Scriptures (the OT) are largely silent on the issue of the afterlife, settling only for the concept of Sheol, though with hints of some eternal existence.

However, during the intertestemental period, with its rather large uptick in Jewish persecution/martyrdom, the question arose – what is the purpose in life if it so often cut short? What happens after life?

The apocryphal books I’ve mentioned (which are canonical in the Eastern Orthodox tradition and part of the official Apocrypha in the Catholic tradition) were part of the answer to that question, which many of the Jewish people believed were inspired answers from God (with the Sadducees and the Temple priests as the primary holdouts, most likely because they were personally/professionally threatened by the concept of the afterlife).

As an engineer, I believe more in probabilities and certainties in many things where certainty is not fully granted.

I believe the Gospel, itself, is certain.

The detailed mode of Creation and the structure of the Afterlife, though, I believe purposely have an element of uncertainty to them.

As such, I would say that most of the Christian Scriptures point to the existence of a place or state of damnation we call “hell”, which is what we all deserve, but which we are freed from as a result of Jesus’ sacrifice and our acceptance of this gift of grace. Those destined for “hell” have, in their hearts, rejected this freely given gift.

I see that it is possible that the destruction of death and Hades in Rev 20 is a possible description of annihilation (which would be “eternal punishment”, as it is a permanent state).

I also see that it is possible that Jesus’ quotation in Mark 9:48 could be a description of eternal, conscious punishment. However, I would note that he is quoting Isaiah 66:24, which says (fully):

“And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.”

And in this context, I would suggest that Jesus’ usage is more about their state of death and “loathsomeness”, and not a description of eternal, conscious torment.

So – what is my view? Hell is something to be avoided today and for eternity – be it conscious and eternal or temporarily conscious and then eternally obliterated.

How exactly it works is of little importance to how we should live today.

I mean that when he was speaking (ie: what we read in the gospels) he was speaking Aramaic. There are numerous instances where this is recorded showing consistency.

Actually, I would argue that it was more likely Hebrew (rather than Aramaic, though the two are very similar). The idea that the Jews in Palestine spoke predominantly Aramaic comes specifically from the gospel of John, where the author calls out some specific Aramaic phrases.

What a number of modern scholars conclude, though, is that John’s audience is primarily Christians (who, until the middle of the second century or later, often met in Synagogues) influenced by Jewish missionaries and diaspora Jews. The Jews of the diaspora primarily spoke Aramaic (not Hebrew), so John’s calling out specific items in Aramaic is not surprising.

However, when you examine the Synoptics, linguistically, it becomes obvious that their common source (Q) is more likely Hebrew, not Aramaic, from the underlying structure and translated Hebraisms. Additionally, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which preserved the Jewish literature of the mid-first century, it has become much more widely accepted that Hebrew was the predominant local language. The primary groups disputing this are Catholics and some Fundamentalists who see John’s references as being a universal indicator, rather than an Asia Minor/diaspora cultural convention.

My point is that in the parabolic language when meeting with folks in Jerusalem or Galilee, it’s doubtful he used the word “Hades” (in fact, often used Gehenna while in Jerusalem).

[...]You are speculating when you say he used this word in particular

1) Note that Gehenna is a Hebrew word…

2) I would agree that he used Gehenna when speaking to Jewish audiences.

3) I would note that his usage in Caesarea Philippi in Mark 8 & Matt 16 (which I’ve written about here) is specifically Hades, not Gehenna. We can be rather certain of this because a) Caesarea Philippi was thoroughly gentile and only spoke Greek; and b) where Jesus would have been standing – at Caesarea Philippi – is in the shadow of a geological feature called “The Gates of Hades” since its founding by the Ptolemaic Greeks.

“death [being] swallowed up by life” sound like universalism.

This is a direct quote from 1 Cor 15.

To see whether or not I am a universalist, just ask Chad. But in seriousness, I am not at all.

I simply don’t believe there is a hell in the sense of it being a place or eternal torment. This is not something revealed in the OT at all, as I’ve specified and neither did the NT church preach about it – even once.

I believe in eternal separation from God through death. Just like darkness is nothing but the absence of light, so death is simply the absence of life. When Christ comes, death dies. So I guess annihilation is where I’d fit if you wanted to put me in a category.

Let me know if that’s clear (not that you agree with me, but that I am at least properly conveying my thoughts on this).

Neither 69 nor 63 are clear to me. “death [being] swallowed up by life” sound like universalism. Do you believe that everyone will be resurrected and given eternal glorified bodies?

Annihilationism is a formal doctrine. It teaches, basically, that those who die outside of Christ are annihilated – they do not suffer eternal punishment, suffering, hell… but they suffer eternal death – separation from God – they cease to exist.